Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout

Torsten Bögershausen [off-list ref] writes:

On 07/13/2014 10:28 PM, David Turner wrote:

quoted

From: David Turner <redacted>

[]

quoted

diff --git a/cache-tree.c b/cache-tree.c
index 7fa524a..f951d7d 100644
--- a/cache-tree.c
+++ b/cache-tree.c

@@ -239,9 +239,12 @@ static int update_one(struct cache_tree *it,
  	struct strbuf buffer;
  	int missing_ok = flags & WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK;
  	int dryrun = flags & WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN;
+	int repair = flags & WRITE_TREE_REPAIR;
  	int to_invalidate = 0;
  	int i;
  +	assert(!(dryrun && repair));

I think something in the spirit of
die("dryrun and repaiir can not be used together"\n)
Would be nicer to the user as well as being more reliable (as assert
may be a no-op in some systems)

While it is a good suggestion *not* to attempt validating the
end-user input with assert() for the reason you state, I think for
this particular case, these flags only come from the code and assert()
to catch programming errors would be sufficient.

Besides, as discussed elsewhere, WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN should not be
used, and the support for it should be dropped.  It is broken in
that the code path that leads to update_one() may correctly compute
tree object names and stuff them in the cache-tree, higher layer
code would then complain on such a cache-tree that records tree
objects that do not exist.