# Re: \[PATCH 4/4\] fetch-pack: print and use dangling .gitmodules

- From: Jonathan Tan \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-01-28 01:07:27 
- List: git
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/01/7873842
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/01/7872847/t.md

```text
> On Sun, Jan 24 2021, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> 
> > +void register_found_gitmodules(const struct object_id *oid)
> > +{
> > +	oidset_insert(&gitmodules_found, oid);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> In fsck.c we only use this variable to insert into it, or in fsck_blob()
> to do the actual check, but then we either abort early if we've found
> it, or right after that:

By "this variable", do you mean gitmodules_found? fsck_finish() consumes
it.

>         if (object_on_skiplist(options, oid))
>                 return 0;
> 
> So (along with comments I have below...) you could just use the existing
> "skiplist" option instead, no?

I don't understand this part (in particular, the part you quoted). About
"skiplist", I'll reply to your other email [1] which has more details.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/87czxu7c15.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/

> This whole thing seems just like the bad path I took in earlier rounds
> of my in-flight mktag series. You don't need this new custom API. You
> just setup an error handler for your fsck which ignores / prints / logs
> / whatever the OIDs you want if you get a FSCK_MSG_GITMODULES_MISSING
> error, which you then "return 0" on.
> 
> If you don't have FSCK_MSG_GITMODULES_MISSING punt and call
> fsck_error_function().

I tried that first, and the issue is that IDs like
FSCK_MSG_GITMODULES_MISSING are internal to fsck.c. As for whether we
should start exposing the IDs publicly, I think we should wait until a
few new cases like this come up, so that we more fully understand the
requirements first.
```