git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Minor bug: git config ignores empty sections

From
Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org>
Date
Aug 16, 2016, 04:06 UTC
Message-ID
<CALO-guvVMFitNdGYEonXZ9rh8g8=L9gZojXVUu7FO2_0ki24EQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20160815185500.htgrz3t2wkztg4ww@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> I notice that we have thought about all the issues when we last
>> discussed it in 2013.  Refining a message from the earlier thread,
>> as it illustrates tricky cases in which we have to be careful.
>
> Thanks for digging up the threads that I was too lazy to find.
>
> I agree with most everything here, though I would be happy if somebody
> even wrote a patch to handle the "easy" cases.

So it sounds like removing an empty header is problematic in most cases, but adding a new variable to an existing empty header should not be...?

I looked at the code, and had a rough sketch that works as follows:
* Make git_parse_source() call the callback in a special way to note
  that a section header is seen (I hacked it by passing a special value,
  a pointer to a global string, as the second argument)
* Add a new store.last_section_offset field
* In store_aux(), if it's getting the special value, and the section
  name matches, save the offset in store.last_section_offset
* In git_config_set_multivar_in_file_gently() right before the "write
  the first part of the config" comment, test that
      (store.seen == 1 && copy_begin == 0 && copy_end == contents_sz
       && store.last_section_offset > 0)
  and if so, write the contents up to that point, and set copy_begin;
  if the condition is false, do the same thing it does now
* A bit after that, add "&& store.last_section_offset == 0" to the
  condition that decides whether to call store_write_section()

It looks to me like something like this can work, but it's very hacky because I wanted to see if it can work quickly, and because I don't know if this kind of a solution will be wanted, and because I don't know enough about that code in general. Making it be an actual solution involves a better way to call the callback in a special way (my hack does the special thing only if `fn==store_aux`, but it shouldn't), calling it after the last variable in a section is seen so it's added after that.

So, will something like this be acceptable? If so, is there anyone who I can ask questions about the code?

-- 
                   ((x=>x(x))(x=>x(x)))                  Eli Barzilay:
                   http://barzilay.org/                  Maze is Life!
Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Jeff King
Message 9 of 12 in “Minor bug: git config ignores empty sections”
  1. Eli BarzilayAug 15, 2016
  2. Jeff KingAug 15, 2016
  3. Andreas SchwabAug 15, 2016
  4. Jeff KingAug 15, 2016
  5. Junio C HamanoAug 15, 2016
  6. Andreas SchwabAug 15, 2016
  7. Jeff KingAug 15, 2016
  8. Junio C HamanoAug 15, 2016
  9. Eli BarzilayAug 16, 2016
  10. Jeff KingAug 16, 2016
  11. Jakub NarębskiAug 21, 2016
  12. Junio C HamanoAug 15, 2016

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.