Re: [PATCH RFC] mailmap: fix check-mailmap with full mailmap line
- From
Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 15, 2025, 00:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CA+P7+xr4EaTqSw0vqpJz17iF9gMFqhAt_6rvTsv+49mrWYntDw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqwmdtmmsl.fsf@gitster.g>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 3:45 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 44 quoted lines
> > Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> writes: > > > I recently had reported to me a crash from a coworker using the recently > > added sendemail mailmap support: > > > > 3724814 Segmentation fault (core dumped) git check-mailmap "bugs@company.xx" > > Thanks for relaying the report. > > I can easily reproduce your segfault with our own mailmap, by > picking at random an entry with both name and e-mail listed as > the mapping source, e.g. > > $ git check-mailmap ksaitoh560@gmail.com > > > With a mailmap file containing: > > > > A <a@domain.com> B <b@domain.com> > > > > I get the following unexpected result: > > > > $ git check-mailmap b@domain.com > > <b@domain.com> > > > > Based on my interpretation of the mailmap documentation, I would have > > expected this to translate to "A <a@domain.com>". > > After reading "git help mailmap" twice, my interpretation is > different (disclaimer: I haven't read the implementation of the > mailmap code lately, and the last time I read any part of it is > probably at least a few years ago if not before). > > Unlike "please map anybody with this e-mail address to 'A <a>'" > entry, which is spelled "A <a> <b>", the "fully spelled" form limits > the damage to those that match both name and e-mail, in order to > avoid "D <b>" from getting modified, while rewriting "B <b>" to "A > <a>". So I would not expect a request with no name to be mapped at > all. > > And the command emits the e-mail intact when it does not find any > match, "b@domain.com" being answered by "<b@domain.com>" is quite > expected from my point of view. >
Re-reading the manual, that is a fair interpretation. I can share that with my coworker and he can adapt his mailmap to match this expectation I think.
In that case, I think the simple fix is to just replace the NULL with a "" to resolve the segmentation fault and add a suitable test case for that?
Thanks, Jake
> Thanks.