Thread (58 messages) 58 messages, 4 authors, 2023-12-28

Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] reftable/stack: verify that `reftable_stack_add()` uses auto-compaction

From: Taylor Blau <hidden>
Date: 2023-12-08 21:35:45

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:53:10PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/reftable/stack_test.c b/reftable/stack_test.c
index 0644c8ad2e..c979d177c2 100644
--- a/reftable/stack_test.c
+++ b/reftable/stack_test.c
@@ -850,6 +850,52 @@ static void test_reftable_stack_auto_compaction(void)
 	clear_dir(dir);
 }

+static void test_reftable_stack_add_performs_auto_compaction(void)
+{
+	struct reftable_write_options cfg = { 0 };
+	struct reftable_stack *st = NULL;
+	char *dir = get_tmp_dir(__LINE__);
+	int err, i, n = 20;
+
+	err = reftable_new_stack(&st, dir, cfg);
+	EXPECT_ERR(err);
+
+	for (i = 0; i <= n; i++) {
+		struct reftable_ref_record ref = {
+			.update_index = reftable_stack_next_update_index(st),
+			.value_type = REFTABLE_REF_SYMREF,
+			.value.symref = "master",
+		};
+		char name[100];
+
+		/*
+		 * Disable auto-compaction for all but the last runs. Like this
+		 * we can ensure that we indeed honor this setting and have
+		 * better control over when exactly auto compaction runs.
+		 */
+		st->disable_auto_compact = i != n;
+
+		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "branch%04d", i);
+		ref.refname = name;
Is there a reason that we have to use snprintf() here and not a strbuf?

I would have expected to see something like:

    struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
    /* ... */
    strbuf_addf(&buf, "branch%04d", i);
    ref.refname = strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);

I guess it doesn't matter too much, but I think if we can avoid using
snprintf(), it's worth doing. If we must use snprintf() here, we should
probably use Git's xsnprintf() instead.
+		err = reftable_stack_add(st, &write_test_ref, &ref);
+		EXPECT_ERR(err);
+
+		/*
+		 * The stack length should grow continuously for all runs where
+		 * auto compaction is disabled. When enabled, we should merge
+		 * all tables in the stack.
+		 */
+		if (i != n)
+			EXPECT(st->merged->stack_len == i + 1);
+		else
+			EXPECT(st->merged->stack_len == 1);
You could shorten this to

    EXPECT(st->merged->stack_len == (i == n ? 1 : i + 1);

But I like the version that you wrote here better, because it clearly
indicates when we should and should not perform compaction.

Thanks,
Taylor
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help