Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] refs: expose 'for_each_fullref_in_prefixes'

2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-01-25 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] refs: expose 'for_each_fullref_in_prefixes'

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-23 03:00:19

Taylor Blau [off-list ref] writes:
This function was used in the ref-filter.c code to find the longest
common prefix of among a set of refspecs, and then to iterate all of the
references that descend from that prefix.

A future patch will want to use that same code from ls-refs.c, so
prepare by exposing and moving it to refs.c. Since there is nothing
specific to the ref-filter code here (other than that it was previously
the only caller of this function), this really belongs in the more
generic refs.h header.

The code moved in this patch is identical before and after, with the one
exception of renaming some arguments to be consistent with other
functions exposed in refs.h.

Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <redacted>
---
 ref-filter.c | 74 ++------------------------------------------
 refs.c       | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 refs.h       |  9 ++++++
 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
It is amusing that even to a change that is supposedly "expose
existing functionality by moving code around" and nothing else,
we can introduce new glitches.
quoted hunk
diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
index 13dc2c3291..0b5a68588f 100644
--- a/refs.c
+++ b/refs.c
...
+	for_each_string_list_item(prefix, &prefixes) {
+		strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s", prefix->string);
		strbuf_addstr(&buf, prefix->string);

Caught by

https://github.com/git/git/runs/1752536671?check_suite_focus=true#step:4:63

I'll apply the fix suggested by Coccinelle on my end, so there is no
need to send an updated version just for this one.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] refs: expose 'for_each_fullref_in_prefixes'

From: Taylor Blau <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-25 01:36:12

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 06:59:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Caught by

https://github.com/git/git/runs/1752536671?check_suite_focus=true#step:4:63

I'll apply the fix suggested by Coccinelle on my end, so there is no
need to send an updated version just for this one.
Oof. How embarrassing. I'm well aware of the existence of
strbuf_addstr() -- there's even a caller just below the line I changed!
-- but clearly wasn't thinking when I wrote this patch.

Thanks for cleaning it up.

Thanks,
Taylor
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help