Re: [Outreachy PATCH 1/2] t0410: use rev-parse to get the subtree OID

[Dorine Tipo <dorine.a.tipo@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 01:01:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> [devil's advocate hat on]
> 
> That may avoid piping, but are they chekcing the same thing?  If
> HEAD had a tree that sorts before a_dir due to a bug, the original
> test would have used that tree instead of the tree of a_dir.  Later
> tests may have noticed that the tree object is not what is expected
> for a_dir and led to the discovery of such a bug.  The new test goes
> directly to a_dir so it wouldn't catch such a bug.
> 
> [devil's advoicate hat off]
> 
> Arguably, the use of "head -1" in the original pipeline is
> unnecessary as 'repo' prepared there only has a_dir/something and
> nothing else, and if the extra tree that was added by a bug sorted
> after a_dir, it would have hidden such a bug, instead of catching
> it.  So in the sense, it would be better to assume that the tree
> would be created in a shape that we expect and explicitly name the
> directory we are interested in i.e., "HEAD:a_dir".
> 
> So, one thing we may want to add to the second paragraph of the
> proposed log message is that the original assumed silently that the
> first tree object in ls-tree output is the tree we are intrerested
> in, without even validating what path the tree was stored at, and it
> would be an improvement to name 'a_dir' explicitly in the test.
> 
> 
Thank you, that makes sense. I'll add that to the second paragraph in v2.
I'll wait a little to see if any changes are needed on patch 2/2, then
send v2 with everything together.