From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 06:52:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] catfile.c: add --batch-command mode
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTeqhOYTu9WBiY=LnZtt35hAp3Qa5RduC2yLut6p01_1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F83E252-D99C-47CB-B47F-11B8EA554A4F@gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 4:42 PM John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2022, at 1:45, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > The `info` and `contents` commands neglect to do any sort of
> > validation of their arguments, thus any and all bogus invocations are
> > accepted. Thus:
> >
> >     info
> >     info <arg1> <arg2>
> >     info <non-oid>
> >
> > are all accepted as valid invocations, misleadingly producing "<foo>
> > missing" messages, rather than erroring out as they should. The "<oid>
> > missing" message should be reserved for the case when the lone
> > argument to `info` or `contents` is something which looks like a
> > legitimate OID.
>
> So actually the argument to info and contents doesn't have to be an OID but an object name that
> eventually gets passed to get_oid_with_context() to resolve to an actual oid. This is the
> same behavior as git cat-file --batch and --batch-check, neither of which throws an error. My
> goal was to maintain this behavior in --batch-command.

Okay, that makes sense. I was misled by the commit message talking
about "<sha1>" in its examples, and didn't do my due diligence by
digging more deeply into the existing documentation and code.