Re: [PATCH v3 17/19] pathspec.c: extract new validate_path() for reuse

Adam Spiers [off-list ref] writes:

The name needs to be a lot more specific.

There may be 47 different kinds of "validations" various callers may
want to do on a path, but this function only caters to one kind of
callers that want to make sure that the path refers to something
that we would directly add to our index.

+{
+	if (has_symlink_leading_path(path, strlen(path))) {
+		int len = prefix ? strlen(prefix) : 0;
+		die(_("'%s' is beyond a symbolic link"), path + len);
+	}
+}

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Adam Spiers [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This will be reused by a new git check-ignore command.

Signed-off-by: Adam Spiers <redacted>
---
 pathspec.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
 pathspec.h |  1 +
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
index 8aea0d2..6724121 100644
--- a/pathspec.c
+++ b/pathspec.c

@@ -77,9 +77,20 @@ void treat_gitlinks(const char **pathspec)
 }

 /*
+ * Dies if the given path refers to a file inside a symlinked
+ * directory.
+ */
+void validate_path(const char *path, const char *prefix)

The name needs to be a lot more specific.

There may be 47 different kinds of "validations" various callers may
want to do on a path, but this function only caters to one kind of
callers that want to make sure that the path refers to something
that we would directly add to our index.

quoted

+{
+     if (has_symlink_leading_path(path, strlen(path))) {
+             int len = prefix ? strlen(prefix) : 0;
+             die(_("'%s' is beyond a symbolic link"), path + len);
+     }
+}

Good point.  Which do you prefer of these suggested names?

- die_if_path_beyond_symlink()
- validate_path_not_beyond_symlink()
- die_if_symlink_leading_path()
- validate_no_symlink_leading_path()
- validate_path_addable_to_index()

Or something else?