Re: [PATCH 1/2] sha1_name: fix error message for @{u}

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 21, 2013, 20:08 UTC
Message-ID: <7vtxlwm6z4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0m7VBz3wDGUACJAfp33M1GYqKCeMCkQwrgA7kqRMp_rtQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> So did you or did you not audit the codepath?
>>
>> No; I was explaining why I didn't in the first place.  Going through it now.
>
> So, this is what I have:
>
> interpret_branch_name -> interpret_branch_name (recursion)
>                       -> get_sha1_basic -> get_sha1 [context] (end-user data)
>                       -> substitute_branch_name -> dwim (end-user data)
> 		      -> strbuf_branchname (callers pass a branch name; no @{u})
> 		      -> revision.c:add_pending_object [with_mode] (end-user data)
>
> [die_]verify_filename -> builtin/rev-parse.c (end-user)
> 		      -> builtin/reset.c (end-user)
> 		      -> builtin/grep.c:cmd_grep (end-user)
> 		      -> revision.c:setup_revisions (end-user data)

It seems that you are digging in the wrong direction? I was worried about the callers of interpret_branch_name().

But whatever.

I looked at the callers myself while waiting for the test suite to pass for five integration branches and I think the patch is safe. There were some silent error returns from the function but your patch did not touch them (which is good).

> We used to die in die_verify_filename() earlier, but we die in
> interpret_branch_name() after the patch.

I think that is a desired outcome.  Thanks.