Re: [PATCH 1/8] builtin: pass repository to sub commands
- From
karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 18, 2024, 15:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAOLa=ZQ=+ex1SaRJ9-XuCTMoRrfdgXDMyjvRkTLZUfahTfFhnQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <ZziU3wmP0pigGRRr@ArchLinux>
shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> writes:
Show 51 quoted lines
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:42:14PM +0100, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> diff --git a/t/helper/test-parse-options.c b/t/helper/test-parse-options.c
>> index 5250913d99eba18a28878d3904cb7b2399670d02..e5b1fe287e3ec94f0d8a3a99adb68842d52992f6 100644
>> --- a/t/helper/test-parse-options.c
>> +++ b/t/helper/test-parse-options.c
>> @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
>> +#define USE_THE_REPOSITORY_VARIABLE
>> +
>> #include "test-tool.h"
>> #include "parse-options.h"
>> #include "strbuf.h"
>> #include "string-list.h"
>> #include "trace2.h"
>> +#include "repository.h"
>>
>> static int boolean = 0;
>> static int integer = 0;
>> @@ -282,14 +285,16 @@ int cmd__parse_options_flags(int argc, const char **argv)
>> return parse_options_flags__cmd(argc, argv, test_flags);
>> }
>>
>> -static int subcmd_one(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix UNUSED)
>> +static int subcmd_one(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix UNUSED,
>> + struct repository *repo UNUSED)
>> {
>> printf("fn: subcmd_one\n");
>> print_args(argc, argv);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int subcmd_two(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix UNUSED)
>> +static int subcmd_two(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix UNUSED,
>> + struct repository *repo UNUSED)
>> {
>> printf("fn: subcmd_two\n");
>> print_args(argc, argv);
>> @@ -319,7 +324,7 @@ static int parse_subcommand__cmd(int argc, const char **argv,
>>
>> printf("opt: %d\n", opt);
>>
>> - return fn(argc, argv, NULL);
>> + return fn(argc, argv, NULL, the_repository);
>
> Do we need to pass the real "the_repository" variable here. From my
> understanding, we could just pass `NULL` to avoid including the
> "repository.h" and the macro. However, I am not familiar with the
> "test-tool" helper. It my comment was wrong, please ignore.
>We don't _need_ to. The test should work with NULL too. Let me modify this, thanks!
> Thanks, > Jialuo