Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] show-index: fix uninitialized hash function

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 02:57:37PM +0530, Abhijeet Sonar wrote:
>> That makes sense, applied.
>> 
>> Abhijeet Sonar (2):
>>   show-index: fix uninitialized hash function
>>   t5300: add test for 'show-index --object-format'
>> 
>>  builtin/show-index.c   |  9 +++++++++
>>  t/t5300-pack-object.sh | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>> 
>> Range-diff against v5:
>> 1:  05ee1e2ea5 = 1:  05ee1e2ea5 show-index: fix uninitialized hash function
>> 2:  c8a28aae55 ! 2:  778f3ca18e t5300: add test for 'show-index --object-format'
>>     @@ t/t5300-pack-object.sh: test_expect_success SHA1 'show-index works OK outside a
>>       
>>      +for hash in sha1 sha256
>>      +do
>>     -+	test_expect_success 'setup: show-index works OK outside a repository with hash algo passed in via --object-format' '
>>     -+		git init explicit-hash-$hash --object-format=$hash &&
>>     -+		test_commit -C explicit-hash-$hash one &&
>>     -+
>>     -+		cat >in <<-EOF &&
>>     -+		$(git -C explicit-hash-$hash rev-parse one)
>>     -+		EOF
>>     -+
>>     -+		git -C explicit-hash-$hash pack-objects explicit-hash-$hash <in
>>     -+	'
>>     -+
>>      +	test_expect_success 'show-index works OK outside a repository with hash algo passed in via --object-format' '
>>     ++		test_when_finished "rm -rf explicit-hash-$hash" &&
>>     ++		git init --object-format=$hash explicit-hash-$hash &&
>>     ++		test_commit -C explicit-hash-$hash one &&
>>     ++		git -C explicit-hash-$hash rev-parse one >in &&
>>     ++		git -C explicit-hash-$hash pack-objects explicit-hash-$hash <in &&
>>      +		idx=$(echo explicit-hash-$hash/explicit-hash-$hash*.idx) &&
>>      +		nongit git show-index --object-format=$hash <"$idx" >actual &&
>>     -+		test_line_count = 1 actual &&
>>     -+
>>     -+		rm -rf explicit-hash-$hash
>>     ++		test_line_count = 1 actual
>>      +	'
>>      +done
>>      +
>
> Thanks, this version looks good to me.

Thanks, both.  Let me mark it for 'next', then.