[PATCH v4 3/3] apply: code simplification
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 26, 2023, 23:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20231226233218.472054-4-gitster@pobox.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20231226233218.472054-1-gitster@pobox.com>
Rewrite a bit hard-to-read ternary ?: expression into a cascade of if/else.
Given that read-cache.c:add_index_entry() makes sure that the .ce_mode member is filled with a reasonable value before placing a cache entry in the index, if we see (ce_mode == 0), there is something seriously wrong going on. Catch such a bug and abort, instead of silently ignoring such an entry and silently skipping the check.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> --- apply.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/apply.c b/apply.c index 6b1adccb2f..493a263a48 100644 --- a/apply.c +++ b/apply.c @@ -3780,11 +3780,15 @@ static int check_preimage(struct apply_state *state, } if (!state->cached && !previous) { - if (!trust_executable_bit) - st_mode = (*ce && (*ce)->ce_mode) - ? (*ce)->ce_mode : patch->old_mode; - else + if (*ce && !(*ce)->ce_mode) + BUG("ce_mode == 0 for path '%s'", old_name); + + if (trust_executable_bit) st_mode = ce_mode_from_stat(*ce, st->st_mode); + else if (*ce) + st_mode = (*ce)->ce_mode; + else + st_mode = patch->old_mode; } if (patch->is_new < 0)
-- 2.43.0-174-g055bb6e996