Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ref: add symbolic ref content check for files backend

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > Also, I think we don't typically call the value of a symbolic ref
> > "pointee", but "target". Searching for "pointee" in our codebase only
> > gives a single hit, and that one is not related to symbolic refs.
> 
> Yesterday while I was studying for reviewing this series, I saw some
> existing code that call them "referent".  There may also be "target".

> >> +	if (!newline_pos || *(newline_pos + 1)) {
> >> +		ret = fsck_report_ref(o, report,
> >> +				      FSCK_MSG_REF_MISSING_NEWLINE,
> >> +				      "missing newline");
> >> +	}
> >
> > The second condition `*(newline_pos + 1)` checks whether there is any
> > data after the newline, doesn't it? That indicates a different kind of
> > error than "missing newline", namely that there is trailing garbage. I
> > guess we'd want to report a separate info-level message for this.
> >
> > Also, shouldn't we use `strchr` instead of `strrchr()`? Otherwise, we're
> > only checking for trailing garbage after the _last_ newline, not after
> > the first one.
> 
> None of the above.  It should strbuf_rtrim() and if we removed
> anything but just a single terminating LF, we are looking at
> something we wouldn't ahve written.  The next check_refname_format()
> call would then find "trailing garbage".