Re: [PATCH 4/4] remote: use remote_is_configured() for add and rename
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 15, 2016, 18:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20160215183334.GH26443@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <1455558150-30267-5-git-send-email-t.gummerer@gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:42:30PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> Both remote add and remote rename use a slightly different hand-rolled
> check if the remote exits. The hand-rolled check may have some subtle
> cases in which it might fail to detect when a remote already exists.
> One such case was fixed in fb86e32 ("git remote: allow adding remotes
> agreeing with url.<...>.insteadOf"). Another case is when a remote is
> configured as follows:
>
> [remote "foo"]
> vcs = bar
>
> If we try to run `git remote add foo bar` with the above remote
> configuration, git segfaults. This change fixes it.
>
> In addition, git remote rename $existing foo with the configuration for
> foo as above silently succeeds, even though foo already exists,
> modifying its configuration. With this patch it fails with "remote foo
> already exists".Checking is_configured() certainly sounds like a better test, but...
Show 14 quoted lines
> diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c
> index 981c487..bd57f1b 100644
> --- a/builtin/remote.c
> +++ b/builtin/remote.c
> @@ -186,10 +186,7 @@ static int add(int argc, const char **argv)
> url = argv[1];
>
> remote = remote_get(name);
> - if (remote && (remote->url_nr > 1 ||
> - (strcmp(name, remote->url[0]) &&
> - strcmp(url, remote->url[0])) ||
> - remote->fetch_refspec_nr))
> + if (remote_is_configured(remote))
> die(_("remote %s already exists."), name);This original is quite confusing. I thought at first that there was perhaps something going on with allowing repeated re-configuration of the same remote, as long as some parameters matched. I.e., I am wondering if there is a case here that does _not_ segfault, that we would be breaking.
But reading over fb86e32dcc, I think I have convinced myself that it was merely an ad-hoc check for "is_configured", and using that function is a better replacement.
-Peff