From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 B435314B978 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721837201; cv=none; b=eyxsszAOyWnqXqlRVRi1qry1t5veBOGwklaWSSEPpN1uCUk41qNxLj0eJ8SVzP/bmZYp+FpU/w9KucZX7pVXfADlW/PA5p80l8FVXiKZZJ7VR4ImK3QnBLCm+DcSTQXjDa/dBuv89rMrIYNWnNygIn/6HJqDcXDwLBMsbJJVPhs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721837201; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AzvA5SUu7kk4NmXK0COflK6NzG8nlNkOde4XKDz7Pcg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cbOfP4AQixmxIuzNuIQQHDVQdW1j0HCYt0UXrHvnnPe9Awy4TopYs5np8U8R8+Q4vaHDIk40RU7nxWcweTpS1NI6uGESVxFSpilPd/Odv2rNQtUidRXI4FtjAGX4bpaAZxQC/3OcQFq344I0CNw0aFkI3EfRvyr/3bQnW8TqGos= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=ZxRFS4cl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="ZxRFS4cl" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CD21CE95; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:06:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=AzvA5SUu7kk4NmXK0COflK6NzG8nlNkOde4XKD z7Pcg=; b=ZxRFS4clxtjZp1naF+rvG4O8lrRNxdtaClubxYYbS0UlkK0wlq6G5g SMWlXdKzHOKAOJ9EK4UrIsiZxuT+jOy+7bmG9srTpSGmVHpg0DTir5ijoNeAVFa4 ONbCl8EyLWZVgs6D8KxQqDnei0mk7nrfqUA58UUgDnyaJGuN59pg4= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7DC1CE93; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:06:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68EF31CE91; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:06:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Christian Couder , Chandra Pratap , git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH v5 0/7] t: port reftable/pq_test.c to the unit testing framework In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Wed, 24 Jul 2024 10:56:37 +0200") References: <20240614095136.12052-1-chandrapratap3519@gmail.com> <20240723143032.4261-1-chandrapratap3519@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 09:06:31 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B244E1AC-49D6-11EF-A52F-9625FCCAB05B-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: > Of course, those shims will closely follow the interfaces that we have > in Git. E.g. there will shims for "strbuf", the tempfile interface, and > everything else that we currently use in the reftable library. So > ultimately, I expect that the shim implementations will simply look like > the following: > > ``` > typedef struct strbuf reftable_buf; > > static inline void reftable_buf_add(struct strbuf reftable_buf *buf, > const void *data, size_t len) > { > strbuf_add(buf, data, len); > } > ``` > > While we could also shim out the priority queue, I don't really think > that it is worth it. OK, I am fine if somebody wants to spend cycles to move the reftable_pq tests to the unit-test framework. I just wasn't sure what the future plans were, and one obvious direction to replace reftable_pq would invalidate such work, and I wanted to make sure everybody involved in this effort is aware of that. Thanks.