From: Sean Allred <allred.sean@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 22:23:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Bug report - Can create worktrees from bare repo / such worktrees can fool is_bare_repository()
Message-ID: <CABceR4aP8BVr10RYS_0PFG7ExRTJ3tB541JGC4DJ7CUsMg9+Jw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <003f01d7f51f$f7bb0860$e7311920$@nexbridge.com>

> what about the comparison code where is_bare_repository_cfg is
> compared with 1 (it is a boolean and sometimes set to -1). This
> would not generally pass a code review.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't completely follow.  Wouldn't the most
straightforward change be to simply follow the documented
recommendation when we create the worktree config in `git
sparse-checkout init`?  Specifically,

    @@ -374,6 +374,9 @@ static int set_config(enum sparse_checkout_mode mode)
                           "core.sparseCheckoutCone",
                           mode == MODE_CONE_PATTERNS ? "true" : NULL);

    +    if (is_bare_repository())
    +      git_config_set_in_file_gently(config_path, "core.bare", "false");
    +
         if (mode == MODE_NO_PATTERNS)
             set_sparse_index_config(the_repository, 0);

Are we saying the comparison within is_bare_repository() may not be
appropriate in this case?

---

Or maybe it makes more sense to call set_git_work_tree() somewhere
sensible such that get_git_work_tree() will return non-null.  Doing a
deeper dive into the code, that might be the *real* root cause
(assuming the_repository->worktree is NULL in this scenario; I have
not run git through a debugger).  Such a change could have
farther-reaching consequences, though.