From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96DB528FF for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731727436; cv=none; b=uVvEBmtlzlqGxP2Wm1vbKYBbEyJB4n3mFJlUylhCkMqCnGbD7rgzXK6kp1Bp/bv4WkaNVYdimQ7KYZOqcGQieoKFQmTzVEbiLrOnghkHjnh4G+1i1NdoXWMC2jwvrux2TNTusj8e2LD/1r+4FDj5vYj3PJfzSHmxiEhuK4jSxLs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731727436; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xosnw0HgbapQv+Z4vV9+MnSGDM3Srr25KVvaAeKgCJI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Us20dO0ACdC9lwURLmZ1Fm4vVy+Hd6CYYVeMtBBO5U44QjEHw+pUSwMBAigOsQxPWBRDTXInFDSQAKiz/BfrjoDAc09oJnb0ONRl+Zz5VljoPkfTu4zSkkpUgYOlHCdE5pr9u9xHFCDSc3vS0OUplwvlj5iJ8DhejEtvt2QcS+o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=S9QtAgNL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="S9QtAgNL" Received: (qmail 24896 invoked by uid 109); 16 Nov 2024 03:23:53 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=xosnw0HgbapQv+Z4vV9+MnSGDM3Srr25KVvaAeKgCJI=; b=S9QtAgNLm3o3EYiUiozzmnprmiNwNvJlwOaVsuz30alZVbSr2v39MoBUjPj15HOUusJgcrkG1tB7KevKnvpFsEuLE1JNonGjbstpCM8jd09SidhrznSpDMletQH144k8WScvpTcbO/DP4Jc/z+4APIGqJ8Ag9kDwBFYXXpmU3rvgz/DzRN5VXdJldal/eB/NZMoSRr+FZDHkyHD+Piaye2k0S0ev2QWvURYnVomVQ+rBcWWymVBvfFWlM9//vrwvhr18BSYcW6wM4B/nKDWZrqRtJK9qT70s8HqLNP3txewucBKkdUYtQTxNRJNc4rI1z9FnOppAE1eZBl6d2/QCQw== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:23:53 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 16297 invoked by uid 111); 16 Nov 2024 03:23:56 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 22:23:56 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 22:23:52 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, steadmon@google.com, hanyang.tony@bytedance.com, me@ttaylorr.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] t5300: move --window clamp test next to unclamped Message-ID: <20241116032352.GA1782794@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20241114005652.GC1140565@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20241115195503.3395744-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241115195503.3395744-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > So this may become more real in the future. I wonder if there is a way > > to add a test to future-proof against changes to how the quarantine > > system works. The theoretical problem case is if we did quarantine > > fetches, but accidentally wrote the new promisor pack into the main > > repo instead of the quarantine, and then a fetch rejected the incoming > > pack (because of a hook, failed connectivity check, etc). Then we'd end > > up with the new promisor pack when we shouldn't, which I guess could > > move objects from that incoming pack that we rejected into the main > > repo, despite the quarantine? > > > > I can't think of a way to test that now, without the quarantine-on-fetch > > feature existing. > > Quarantine on fetch does seem like a good idea. I also can't think of > a way to test that now. Although, for the fetch case, my patch set is > not the first time that an extra packfile (that is, a packfile not in > the "packfile" section of the fetch response) could be written during > a fetch: packfile-uris and bundle-uris already exist. So I would hope > that the implementor of the fetch quarantine feature would be aware of > at least one of these extra features, and design the test to check that > absolutely no packfiles are written if the fetch is rejected. (So I > don't think the future needs to be "proofed" so much.) Good point. I think we have to just leave it until that hypothetical future and hope that person is careful. :) -Peff