Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] wt-status: pass struct repository and wt_status through function parameters

> Shreyansh Paliwal <shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> > Some functions in wt-status.c relied on the_repository because no
> >> > repository instance was available in their local scope.
> >> > There is also a specific case in wt_status_check_rebase() where the
> >> > worktree can be NULL, so accessing wt->repo may lead to a segfault.
> >> >
> >> > Update these functions to accept a struct repository or struct
> >> > wt_status parameter, and adjust callers accordingly. Replace the
> >> > remaining uses of the_repository in these functions with the
> >> > passed-in repository instance.
> >> >
> >> > This removes the use of the_repository global variable from
> >> > wt-status.c completely.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Okay, but this doesn't fix the issue I stated in the previous commit. I
> >> do wonder if we can re-order the commits and pass the repo struct to
> >> functions like 'get_branch()'.
> >
> > Sorry, I didn’t fully think through what you were pointing out in the
> > previous version. I initially assumed you were only referring to the
> > specific call involving wt_status_check_rebase(NULL, state).
> >
> > So struct worktree *wt is not guaranteed to be defined and can be
> > NULL. Because of that, relying on wt->repo is unsafe.
> > Instead, rather than depending on the worktree for repository access (wt->repo),
> > we can pass struct repository explicitly through the relevant call
> > stack, like in functions get_branch() and wt_status_check_bisect().
> > I hope I have understood it correctly.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shreyansh
> 
> I would say its not that black and white. There's a lot of context
> around it. There are places where `struct worktree *wt` should
> definitely be defined. So we have to take it on a case by case basis.
> Which is what makes these refactors a bit tricky.