Add missing content_git_object
This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the
API in any sense.
Differential D7653
Add missing `content_git_object` Ericson2314 on Apr 26 2022, 7:42 AM. Authored by
Details
Add missing content_git_object This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the
Diff Detail
Event TimelineComment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7653 (id=27689)Rebasing onto f82a2179dc... Current branch diff-target is up to date. Changes applied before testcommit 3bc6f9f4c1303e7e12d45e8fb5c95054d541e0fc Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. On the other hand, I don't think this test is correct at all. `Content` doesn't derive from `HashableObject` like the others. I suspect that is why `content_git_object` didn't already exist. I get the sense there are number of historical subtleties here I am probably stomping over in ignorance :). Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: plt-amy, zack, anlambert, vlorentz Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/472/ Comment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7653 (id=27690)Rebasing onto f82a2179dc... Current branch diff-target is up to date. Changes applied before testcommit fd7c5e10e5587b304cec2f9f2a19bfd55b7d0894 Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. On the other hand, I don't think this test is correct at all. `Content` doesn't derive from `HashableObject` like the others. I suspect that is why `content_git_object` didn't already exist. I get the sense there are number of historical subtleties here I am probably stomping over in ignorance :). Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/473/ Comment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7653 (id=27691)Rebasing onto f82a2179dc... Current branch diff-target is up to date. Changes applied before testcommit efd5a9e521bfc267b5af4a93e57b9337bd5cfb50 Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. On the other hand, I don't think this test is correct at all. `Content` doesn't derive from `HashableObject` like the others. I suspect that is why `content_git_object` didn't already exist. I get the sense there are number of historical subtleties here I am probably stomping over in ignorance :). Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/474/ Comment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7653 (id=27692)Rebasing onto f82a2179dc... Current branch diff-target is up to date. Changes applied before testcommit c1a50cc7bcdccfb3dca6d497b996c66e67331e1b Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. On the other hand, I don't think this test is correct at all. `Content` doesn't derive from `HashableObject` like the others. I suspect that is why `content_git_object` didn't already exist. I get the sense there are number of historical subtleties here I am probably stomping over in ignorance :). Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/475/ Comment Actions HashableObject is for objects with an id, which is their only hash. This makes sense for most objects, because they only have one hash algorithm we care about You should skip testing content.test(), and only test content_git_object directly Comment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7653 (id=27798)Rebasing onto 2c0701cb77... First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it... Applying: Add missing `content_git_object` Changes applied before testcommit 277764247ea3e1f3af3be4be8d9f999dcf8b615b Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. On the other hand, I don't think this test is correct at all. `Content` doesn't derive from `HashableObject` like the others. I suspect that is why `content_git_object` didn't already exist. I get the sense there are number of historical subtleties here I am probably stomping over in ignorance :). Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/477/ Comment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7653 (id=27799)Rebasing onto 2c0701cb77... First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it... Applying: Add missing `content_git_object` Changes applied before testcommit b039e2d750b724368aa812b319755ff2344f6d7e Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. On the other hand, I don't think this test is correct at all. `Content` doesn't derive from `HashableObject` like the others. I suspect that is why `content_git_object` didn't already exist. I get the sense there are number of historical subtleties here I am probably stomping over in ignorance :). Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/478/ Comment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7653 (id=27800)Rebasing onto 2c0701cb77... Current branch diff-target is up to date. Changes applied before testcommit 57c66993b6e7587b9f92b7007aab44c6719cd9b2 Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/479/ Comment Actions Build is green Patch application report for D7653 (id=27801)Rebasing onto 2c0701cb77... Current branch diff-target is up to date. Changes applied before testcommit 524f2324690a9459d842bcffa3991c52572cd1d0 Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/480/ for more details. Comment Actions Thanks. One last thing for this diff: could you clean up the commit message? It should be this: Add missing `content_git_object` This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. Comment Actions @vlorentz do you mean repeat the title in the summary field? (I suppose https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/contributing/phabricator.html#starting-a-new-feature-and-submit-it-for-review did say that but I was bit confused as it seemed like the title might appear twice in the final commit.) Comment Actions No, remove the fields. ie. replace all of this: Add missing `content_git_object` Summary: This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. Reviewers: #reviewers Subscribers: vlorentz, anlambert, zack, plt-amy Differential Revision: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/D7653 with just this: Add missing `content_git_object` This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. Summary/Test Plan/Reviewers/Subscribers/... is only the diff's message, not the commit's Comment Actions Build is green Patch application report for D7653 (id=27854)Rebasing onto 2c0701cb77... Current branch diff-target is up to date. Changes applied before testcommit 08c69e63794a6d7a839f7201ee957c223f65f898 Author: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems> Date: Tue Apr 26 01:33:07 2022 -0400 Add missing `content_git_object` This would be useful for the IPFS bridge, and seems good to complete the API in any sense. See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DMOD/job/tests-on-diff/481/ for more details. |