From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:27:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/15] ref-filter: introduce objectname_atom_parser()
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:
> 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