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!