Hi Johannes,
Le 22/03/2021 à 23:20, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
Hi Alban,
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021, Alban Gruin wrote:
quoted
@@ -69,10 +69,13 @@ int cmd_merge_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
if (skip_prefix(pgm, "--use=", &use_internal)) {
if (!strcmp(use_internal, "merge-one-file"))
- pgm = "git-merge-one-file";
+ merge_action = merge_one_file_func;
else
die(_("git merge-index: unknown internal program %s"), use_internal);
- }
+
+ repo_hold_locked_index(r, &lock, LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR);
+ } else
+ merge_action = merge_one_file_spawn;
I would have a slight preference to keep the default initializer, because
that makes it easer to reason about. But if you _want_ to keep this patch
as-is, I won't object.
Yeah, not sure why I did this. I'll change this.
It is a bit sad that the conversion cannot be done more incrementally, as
there is a lot to unpack in the many different cases that are handled. It
looks correct, though.
Just one thing:
quoted
for (; i < argc; i++) {
const char *arg = argv[i];diff --git a/builtin/merge-one-file.c b/builtin/merge-one-file.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..ad99c6dbd4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/builtin/merge-one-file.c
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+/*
+ * Builtin "git merge-one-file"
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2020 Alban Gruin
+ *
+ * Based on git-merge-one-file.sh, written by Linus Torvalds.
+ *
+ * This is the git per-file merge utility, called with
+ *
+ * argv[1] - original file object name (or empty)
+ * argv[2] - file in branch1 object name (or empty)
+ * argv[3] - file in branch2 object name (or empty)
+ * argv[4] - pathname in repository
+ * argv[5] - original file mode (or empty)
+ * argv[6] - file in branch1 mode (or empty)
+ * argv[7] - file in branch2 mode (or empty)
+ *
+ * Handle some trivial cases. The _really_ trivial cases have been
+ * handled already by git read-tree, but that one doesn't do any merges
+ * that might change the tree layout.
+ */
+
+#include "cache.h"
+#include "builtin.h"
+#include "lockfile.h"
+#include "merge-strategies.h"
+
+static const char builtin_merge_one_file_usage[] =
+ "git merge-one-file <orig blob> <our blob> <their blob> <path> "
+ "<orig mode> <our mode> <their mode>\n\n"
+ "Blob ids and modes should be empty for missing files.";
+
+static int read_mode(const char *name, const char *arg, unsigned int *mode)
+{
+ char *last;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ *mode = strtol(arg, &last, 8);
+
+ if (*last)
+ ret = error(_("invalid '%s' mode: expected nothing, got '%c'"), name, *last);
+ else if (!(S_ISREG(*mode) || S_ISDIR(*mode) || S_ISLNK(*mode)))
+ ret = error(_("invalid '%s' mode: %o"), name, *mode);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+int cmd_merge_one_file(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
+{
+ struct object_id orig_blob, our_blob, their_blob,
+ *p_orig_blob = NULL, *p_our_blob = NULL, *p_their_blob = NULL;
+ unsigned int orig_mode = 0, our_mode = 0, their_mode = 0, ret = 0;
+ struct lock_file lock = LOCK_INIT;
+ struct repository *r = the_repository;
+
+ if (argc != 8)
+ usage(builtin_merge_one_file_usage);
+
+ if (repo_read_index(r) < 0)
+ die("invalid index");
+
+ repo_hold_locked_index(r, &lock, LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR);
+
+ if (!get_oid_hex(argv[1], &orig_blob)) {
+ p_orig_blob = &orig_blob;
+ ret = read_mode("orig", argv[5], &orig_mode);
+ } else if (!*argv[1] && *argv[5])
+ ret = error(_("no 'orig' object id given, but a mode was still given."));
Here, it looks as if the case of an empty `argv[1]` is not handled
_explicitly_, but we rely on `get_oid_hex()` to return non-zero, and then
we rely on the second arm _also_ not re-assigning `orig_blob`.
I wonder whether this could be checked, and whether it would make sense to
fold this, along with most of these 5 lines, into the `read_mode()` helper
function (DRYing up the code even further).
Do you mean rewriting the first condition to read like this:
if (*argv[1] && !get_oid_hex(argv[1], &orig_blob)) {
?
In which case yes, I can do that.
BTW the two lasts calls to read_mode() should be like
err |= read_mode(…);
Cheers,
Alban
As for the rest of the patch, it is totally possible that I missed a bug,
but it looks correct to me, and the added regression tests give me a good
feeling about the patch, too.
Thanks,
Dscho