Re: [PATCH 9/9] ref-filter: add ref_format_clear() function

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 10, 2024, 06:37 UTC
Message-ID: <20240910063715.GD1459778@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <Zt_ijEqdsylYYkNn@pks.im>

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 08:09:16AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 07:21:18PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> > index e8db612f95..b3163629c5 100755
> > --- a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> > +++ b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> >  
> >  test_description='for-each-ref test'
> >  
> > +TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
> >  . ./test-lib.sh
> >  GNUPGHOME_NOT_USED=$GNUPGHOME
> >  . "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/lib-gpg.sh
> 
> Nice! There's also t6302, which has been failing due to all the memory
> leaks in our atom handling, as well. After your series there's a single
> memory leak left to make it pass. So we may want to add below patch on
> top as a low-hanging fruit.

I was afraid to go looking for other almost-there scripts, knowing what a rabbit hole it can turn into (which I know you are also familiar with).

Show 5 quoted lines

> -- >8 --
> diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
> index ce1bcfad857..b06e18a569a 100644
> --- a/ref-filter.c
> +++ b/ref-filter.c

This looks plausibly correct to me, but I'm not at all familiar with the conditional placeholders. I think it would make more sense for you to wrap it up with a commit message.

-Peff