Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] submodule: check for unstaged .gitmodules outside of config parsing
From: Stefan Beller <hidden>
Date: 2017-07-31 23:41:47
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Brandon Williams [off-list ref] wrote:
Teach 'is_staging_gitmodules_ok()' to be able to determine in the '.gitmodules' file has unstaged changes based on the passed in index instead of relying on a global varible which is set during the
variable
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
submodule-config parsing. Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <redacted> --- builtin/mv.c | 2 +- builtin/rm.c | 2 +- submodule.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++--------------- submodule.h | 2 +- 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)diff --git a/builtin/mv.c b/builtin/mv.c index dcf6736b5..94fbaaa5d 100644 --- a/builtin/mv.c +++ b/builtin/mv.c@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static void prepare_move_submodule(const char *src, int first, struct strbuf submodule_dotgit = STRBUF_INIT; if (!S_ISGITLINK(active_cache[first]->ce_mode)) die(_("Directory %s is in index and no submodule?"), src); - if (!is_staging_gitmodules_ok()) + if (!is_staging_gitmodules_ok(&the_index)) die(_("Please stage your changes to .gitmodules or stash them to proceed")); strbuf_addf(&submodule_dotgit, "%s/.git", src); *submodule_gitfile = read_gitfile(submodule_dotgit.buf);diff --git a/builtin/rm.c b/builtin/rm.c index 52826d137..4057e73fa 100644 --- a/builtin/rm.c +++ b/builtin/rm.c@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) list.entry[list.nr].name = xstrdup(ce->name); list.entry[list.nr].is_submodule = S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode); if (list.entry[list.nr++].is_submodule && - !is_staging_gitmodules_ok()) + !is_staging_gitmodules_ok(&the_index)) die (_("Please stage your changes to .gitmodules or stash them to proceed")); }diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c index b1965290f..46ec04d7c 100644 --- a/submodule.c +++ b/submodule.c@@ -37,18 +37,25 @@ static struct oid_array ref_tips_after_fetch; static int gitmodules_is_unmerged; /* - * This flag is set if the .gitmodules file had unstaged modifications on - * startup. This must be checked before allowing modifications to the - * .gitmodules file with the intention to stage them later, because when - * continuing we would stage the modifications the user didn't stage herself - * too. That might change in a future version when we learn to stage the - * changes we do ourselves without staging any previous modifications. + * Check if the .gitmodules file has unstaged modifications. This must be + * checked before allowing modifications to the .gitmodules file with the + * intention to stage them later, because when continuing we would stage the + * modifications the user didn't stage herself too. That might change in a + * future version when we learn to stage the changes we do ourselves without + * staging any previous modifications. */ -static int gitmodules_is_modified; - -int is_staging_gitmodules_ok(void) +int is_staging_gitmodules_ok(const struct index_state *istate) { - return !gitmodules_is_modified; + int pos = index_name_pos(istate, GITMODULES_FILE, strlen(GITMODULES_FILE)); + + if ((pos >= 0) && (pos < istate->cache_nr)) {
Why do we need the second check (pos < istate->cache_nr) ?
I would have assumed the first one suffices,
it might read better if turned around:
if (pos < 0)
return 1;
return (lstat(GITMODULES_FILE, &st) == 0 &&
ce_match_stat(istate->cache[pos], &st, 0) & DATA_CHANGED);
}
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -231,11 +238,6 @@ void gitmodules_config(void) !memcmp(ce->name, ".gitmodules", 11)) gitmodules_is_unmerged = 1; } - } else if (pos < active_nr) { - struct stat st; - if (lstat(".gitmodules", &st) == 0 && - ce_match_stat(active_cache[pos], &st, 0) & DATA_CHANGED) - gitmodules_is_modified = 1; }
So this is where the check "pos < active_nr" is coming from, introduced in 5fee995244 (submodule.c: add .gitmodules staging helper functions, 2013-07-30) as well as d4e98b581b (Submodules: Don't parse .gitmodules when it contains, merge conflicts, 2011-05-14). If I am reading the docs for cache_name_pos correctly, we would not need to check for the index exceeding active_cache, but checking for the index not being out of bounds seems to be wide spread.