Re: [PATCH v3 15/15] ref-filter: introduce objectname_atom_parser()
- From
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 6, 2016, 18:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAOLa=ZQxFTSAfdVf6moRkJYKGDKG35FBUZ+Tg2+d4Ue0biYsuw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqegdviugx.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> @@ -467,15 +482,17 @@ static void *get_obj(const unsigned char *sha1, struct object **obj, unsigned lo
>> }
>>
>> static int grab_objectname(const char *name, const unsigned char *sha1,
>> - struct atom_value *v)
>> + struct atom_value *v, struct used_atom *atom)
>> {
>> - if (!strcmp(name, "objectname")) {
>> - v->s = xstrdup(sha1_to_hex(sha1));
>> - return 1;
>> - }
>> - if (!strcmp(name, "objectname:short")) {
>> - v->s = xstrdup(find_unique_abbrev(sha1, DEFAULT_ABBREV));
>> - return 1;
>> + if (starts_with(name, "objectname")) {
>
> The original used to reject "objectnamefoo", but the updated one is
> more sloppy. Shouldn't it be doing the same match_atom_name() here?
>
> This comment applies to many remaining strcmp() and starts_with()
> that is reachable from populate_value().Should we worry about such extensions of atoms? I see that parse_ref_filter_atom() takes care of something like that in the beginning itself
-- Regards, Karthik Nayak