Re: [PATCH 2/8] [GSOC] ref-filter: add %(raw) atom

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> 于2021年6月17日周四 下午10:45写道：
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17 2021, ZheNing Hu wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Yes, strbuf is a suitable choice when using <str,len> pair.
>> > But if replace v->s with strbuf, the possible changes will be larger.
>>
>> I for one would like to see it done that way, those changes are usually
>> easy to read. Also it seems a large part of 2/8 is extra new code
>> because we didn't do that, e.g. getting length differently if something
>> is a strbuf or not, passing char*/size_t pairs to new functions etc.
>>
>
> After some refactoring, I found that there are two problems:
> 1. There are a lot of codes like this in ref-filter to fill v->s:
>
> v->s = show_ref(...)
> v->s = copy_email(...)
>
> It is very difficult to modify here: We know that show_ref()
> or copy_email() will allocate a block of memory to v->s, but
> if v->s is a strbuf, what should we do? In copy_email(), we
> can pass the v->s to copy_email() and use strbuf_add()/strbuf_addstr()
> instead of xstrdup() and xmemdupz(). But show_ref() will call
> external functions like shorten_unambiguous_ref(), we don’t know
> whether it will return us NULL or a dynamically allocated memory.
> If continue to pass v->s to the inner function, it is not a feasible
> method. Or we can use strbuf_attach() + strlen(), I'm not sure
> this is a good method.
>
> 2. See:
>
> -       for (i = 0; i < used_atom_cnt; i++) {
> +       for (i = 0; i < used_atom_cnt; i++) {
>                 struct atom_value *v = &ref->value[i];
> -               if (v->s == NULL && used_atom[i].source == SOURCE_NONE)
> +               if (v->s.len == 0 && used_atom[i].source == SOURCE_NONE)
>                         return strbuf_addf_ret(err, -1, _("missing
> object %s for %s"),
>
> oid_to_hex(&ref->objectname), ref->refname);
>         }
>
> In the case of using strbuf, I don’t know how to distinguish between an empty
> strbuf and NULL. It can be easily distinguished by using c-style "const char*".

>> >
>> > Not python safe. See [1].
>> > Regarding the perl language, I support Junio's point of view: it can be
>> > re-supported in the future.
>>
>> Ah, I'd missed that. Anyway, if it's easy it seems you discovered that
>> Perl deals with it correctly, so we could just have it support this.
>>
>
> Well, it's ok, support for perl will be put in a separate commit.
>
>> >>
>> >> > +test_expect_success 'basic atom: refs/tags/testtag *raw' '
>> >> > +     git cat-file commit refs/tags/testtag^{} >expected &&
>> >> > +     git for-each-ref --format="%(*raw)" refs/tags/testtag >actual &&
>> >> > +     sanitize_pgp <expected >expected.clean &&
>> >> > +     sanitize_pgp <actual >actual.clean &&
>> >> > +     echo "" >>expected.clean &&
>> >>
>> >> Just "echo" will do, ditto for the rest. Also odd to go back and forth
>> >> between populating expected.clean & actual.clean.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Are you saying that sanitize_pgp is not needed?
>>
>> No that instead of:
>>
>>     echo "" >x
>>
>> You can do:
>>
>>     echo >x
>>
>> And also that going back and forth between populating different files is
>> confusing, i.e. this:
>>
>>
>>     echo a >x
>>     echo c >y
>>     echo b >>x
>>
>> is better as:
>>
>>     echo a >x
>>     echo b >>x
>>     echo c >y
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, I get what you meant now.
>
>> >>
>> >> > +test_expect_success 'set up refs pointing to binary blob' '
>> >> > +     printf "a\0b\0c" >blob1 &&
>> >> > +     printf "a\0c\0b" >blob2 &&
>> >> > +     printf "\0a\0b\0c" >blob3 &&
>> >> > +     printf "abc" >blob4 &&
>> >> > +     printf "\0 \0 \0 " >blob5 &&
>> >> > +     printf "\0 \0a\0 " >blob6 &&
>> >> > +     printf "  " >blob7 &&
>> >> > +     >blob8 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob1 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob1 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob2 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob2 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob3 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob3 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob4 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob4 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob5 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob5 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob6 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob6 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob7 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob7 &&
>> >> > +     git hash-object blob8 -w | xargs git update-ref refs/myblobs/blob8
>> >>
>> >> Hrm, xargs just to avoid:
>> >>
>> >>     git update-ref ... $(git hash-object) ?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I didn’t think about it, just for convenience.
>>
>> *nod*, Junio had a good suggestion.
>>
>
> ok.
>
> Thanks.