Re: [PATCH 4/9] hook: treat hookdir hook specially

On Thu, Jul 22 2021, Emily Shaffer wrote:

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:58:34AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 15 2021, Emily Shaffer wrote:

quoted

Soon, we will allow users to specify hooks using the config. These
config-specified hooks may require different child_process options than
hook executables in the gitdir. So, let's differentiate between hooks
coming from the gitdir and hooks coming from the config.

Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <redacted>
---
 hook.c | 3 ++-
 hook.h | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hook.c b/hook.c
index 19138a8290..3a588cb055 100644
--- a/hook.c
+++ b/hook.c

@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ struct list_head* hook_list(const char* hookname)
 		struct hook *to_add = xmalloc(sizeof(*to_add));
 		to_add->hook_path = hook_path;
 		to_add->feed_pipe_cb_data = NULL;
+		to_add->from_hookdir = 1;
 		list_add_tail(&to_add->list, hook_head);
 	}
 

@@ -200,7 +201,7 @@ static int pick_next_hook(struct child_process *cp,
 	cp->dir = hook_cb->options->dir;
 
 	/* add command */
-	if (hook_cb->options->absolute_path)
+	if (run_me->from_hookdir && hook_cb->options->absolute_path)
 		strvec_push(&cp->args, absolute_path(run_me->hook_path));
 	else
 		strvec_push(&cp->args, run_me->hook_path);

diff --git a/hook.h b/hook.h
index 586ddf40bb..60389cd8cd 100644
--- a/hook.h
+++ b/hook.h

@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ struct hook {
 	/* The path to the hook */
 	const char *hook_path;
 
+	unsigned from_hookdir : 1;
+
 	/*
 	 * Use this to keep state for your feed_pipe_fn if you are using
 	 * run_hooks_opt.feed_pipe. Otherwise, do not touch it.

The "from_hookdir" looks like it isn't used until 6/9, and maybe the
absolute_path change too? In any case this seems like a carried-forward
rebase of
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210311021037.3001235-5-emilyshaffer@google.com/ (local)
or some version thereof.

At this point I tihnk it would be way better to squash this and other
such changes that basically add a field to a struct that isn't used yet
into whatever commit use/need them.

I think at this point we run into you and me having different
patch-storytelling styles - which probably is what led to the big topic
restart in the first place ;)

I'd prefer to see the "start using config too" patch stay as small as it
can; that's why I ended up with a handful of minor setup commits and
then one "and now here's config" commit.

Even if it's different from how you would tell it - is it wrong? (And if
it is, that's fine, and I'll change it, but I don't think it is - that's
why I structured the series this way.)

It's not wrong, if you'd like it that way sure.

The only reason I nudged you about it was that I assumed you'd perhaps
mostly rebased these one-at-a-time on top of the base topic, before the
base topic the patches were much larger.

There is some arbitrary cut-off-limit where it makes sense to split the
addition of code to be used later with the actual use, and that limit is
a matter of taste.

I thought perhaps given the base topic some of these patches should be
squshed given their new size, but if you've looked at them and think
it's fine as-is let's leave it at that.