Re: [PATCH 7/9] submodule: migrate get_next_submodule to use repository structs
From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2019-02-02 01:58:22
Hi, Stefan Beller wrote:
This patch tightens the check upfront, such that we do not need to spawn a child process to find out if the submodule is broken.
Sounds sensible. [...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/submodule.c +++ b/submodule.c
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1319,10 +1338,23 @@ static int get_next_submodule(struct child_process *cp, argv_array_push(&cp->args, default_argv); argv_array_push(&cp->args, "--submodule-prefix"); argv_array_push(&cp->args, submodule_prefix.buf); + + repo_clear(repo); + free(repo); ret = 1; + } else { + /* + * An empty directory is normal, + * the submodule is not initialized + */ + if (S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode) && + !is_empty_dir(ce->name)) {
What if the directory is nonempty (e.g. contains build artifacts)?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ spf->result = 1; + strbuf_addf(err, + _("Could not access submodule '%s'"), + ce->name); + }
Should this exit the loop? Otherwise, multiple "Could not access" messages can go in the same err string a big concatenated line. Thanks, Jonathan