Re: [PATCH 08/10] t-reftable-block: add tests for log blocks
From: Patrick Steinhardt <hidden>
Date: 2024-08-15 11:22:02
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:33:16PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -101,9 +101,95 @@ static void t_block_read_write(void) reftable_record_release(&recs[i]); } +static void t_log_block_read_write(void) +{ + const int header_off = 21; + struct reftable_record recs[30]; + const size_t N = ARRAY_SIZE(recs); + const size_t block_size = 2048; + struct reftable_block block = { 0 }; + struct block_writer bw = { + .last_key = STRBUF_INIT, + }; + struct reftable_record rec = { + .type = BLOCK_TYPE_LOG, + }; + size_t i = 0; + int n; + struct block_reader br = { 0 }; + struct block_iter it = BLOCK_ITER_INIT; + struct strbuf want = STRBUF_INIT; + + REFTABLE_CALLOC_ARRAY(block.data, block_size); + block.len = block_size; + block.source = malloc_block_source(); + block_writer_init(&bw, BLOCK_TYPE_LOG, block.data, block_size, + header_off, hash_size(GIT_SHA1_FORMAT_ID)); + + for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { + rec.u.log.refname = xstrfmt("branch%02"PRIuMAX , (uintmax_t)i); + rec.u.log.update_index = i; + rec.u.log.value_type = REFTABLE_LOG_UPDATE; + + recs[i] = rec; + n = block_writer_add(&bw, &rec); + rec.u.log.refname = NULL; + rec.u.log.value_type = REFTABLE_LOG_DELETION; + check_int(n, ==, 0); + } + + n = block_writer_finish(&bw); + check_int(n, >, 0);
Do we maybe want to rename `n` to `ret`? That's way more customary in our codebase.
+ block_writer_release(&bw);
+
+ block_reader_init(&br, &block, header_off, block_size, GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ);
+
+ block_iter_seek_start(&it, &br);
+
+ for (i = 0; ; i++) {
+ int r = block_iter_next(&it, &rec);
+ check_int(r, >=, 0);
+ if (r > 0)
+ break;We can also reuse `n` (or `ret`) here, right?
+ check(reftable_record_equal(&recs[i], &rec, GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ)); + }
One thing that this loop doesn't verify is whether we actually got the expected number of log records. It could be that the first iteration already returns `r > 0`, which is not our expectation. So we should likely add a check for `i == N` after the loop. Patrick