Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] rebase -i: check for missing commits in the rebase--helper

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > -check_todo_list
> > +git rebase--helper --check-todo-list || {
> > +	ret=$?
> > +	checkout_onto
> > +	exit $ret
> > +}
> 
> I find this a better division of labor between "check_todo_list" and
> its caller.  Compared to the original that did the "recover and exit
> with failure" inside the helper, this is much easier to see what is
> going on.

> > +/*
> > + * Check if the user dropped some commits by mistake
> > + * Behaviour determined by rebase.missingCommitsCheck.
> > + * Check if there is an unrecognized command or a
> > + * bad SHA-1 in a command.
> > + */
> > +int check_todo_list(void)
> > +{
> > +	enum check_level check_level = get_missing_commit_check_level();
> > +	struct strbuf todo_file = STRBUF_INIT;
> > +	struct todo_list todo_list = TODO_LIST_INIT;
> > +	struct commit_list *missing = NULL;
> > +	int raise_error = 0, res = 0, fd, i;
> > +
> > +	strbuf_addstr(&todo_file, rebase_path_todo());
> > +	fd = open(todo_file.buf, O_RDONLY);
> > +	if (fd < 0) {
> > +		res = error_errno(_("could not open '%s'"), todo_file.buf);
> > +		goto leave_check;
> > +	}
> > +	if (strbuf_read(&todo_list.buf, fd, 0) < 0) {
> > +		close(fd);
> > +		res = error(_("could not read '%s'."), todo_file.buf);
> > +		goto leave_check;
> > +	}
> > +	close(fd);
> > +	raise_error = res =
> > +		parse_insn_buffer(todo_list.buf.buf, &todo_list);
> > +
> > +	if (check_level == CHECK_IGNORE)
> > +		goto leave_check;
> 
> OK, so even it is set to ignore, unreadable todo list will be shown
> with a loud error message that tells the user to use --edit-todo.
> 
> What should happen when it is not set to ignore and we found the
> todo list unacceptable, I wonder?

> > +	/* Get the SHA-1 of the commits */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < todo_list.nr; i++) {
> > +		struct commit *commit = todo_list.items[i].commit;
> > +		if (commit)
> > +			commit->util = todo_list.items + i;
> > +	}
> 
> It does not look like this loop is "Get(ting) the SHA-1 of the commits"
> to me, though.  It is setting up ->util to be usable as a back-pointer
> into the list.

> > +	strbuf_addstr(&todo_file, ".backup");
> > +	fd = open(todo_file.buf, O_RDONLY);
> > +	if (fd < 0) {
> > +		res = error_errno(_("could not open '%s'"), todo_file.buf);
> > +		goto leave_check;
> > +	}
> > +	if (strbuf_read(&todo_list.buf, fd, 0) < 0) {
> > +		close(fd);
> > +		res = error(_("could not read '%s'."), todo_file.buf);
> > +		goto leave_check;
> > +	}
> > +	close(fd);
> > +	strbuf_release(&todo_file);
> > +	res = !!parse_insn_buffer(todo_list.buf.buf, &todo_list);
> 
> Then we read from .backup; failure to do so does not result in the
> "you need to --edit-todo" warning.

> > +	/* Find commits that are missing after editing */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < todo_list.nr; i++) {
> > +		struct commit *commit = todo_list.items[i].commit;
> > +		if (commit && !commit->util) {
> > +			commit_list_insert(commit, &missing);
> > +			commit->util = todo_list.items + i;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> And we check the commits mentioned in the backup; any commit whose
> util is not marked in the previous loop is noticed and thrown into
> the missing list.
> 
> The loop we later have does "while (missing)" and does not look at
> commit->util for commits that are *not* missing, i.e. the ones that
> are marked in the previous loop, so it does not matter that their
> util field have dangling pointers.  In that sense, it may not be
> buggy, but it is misleading.  The only thing these two loops care
> about is that the commits found in the earlier loop get their util
> field set to non-NULL, so instead of using "todo_list.items+i",
> perhaps doing this
> 
> 	if (commit)
> 		commit->util = (void *)1; /* mark as seen */
> 
> in the earlier loop instead would be much less confusing.

> > +	/* Warn about missing commits */
> > +	if (!missing)
> > +		goto leave_check;
> 
> If there is no missing one, we may still return error about
> unacceptable backup file.  But if we read backup fine and didn't
> find anything missing, we'll return silently and with success.  OK.
> 
> > +	if (check_level == CHECK_ERROR)
> > +		raise_error = res = 1;
> 
> Otherwise, we found missing ones and we want to report here.
> 
> The reason why I started reading this function aloud was because I
> found two variables (raise_error and res) somewhat confusing.  I
> think what the code does makes sense, but I still find the way how
> the code expresses the logic with these two variables confusing.
> Perhaps somebody else can hopefully offer possible improvements, as
> I do not offhand think of a way better than what is currently in
> this patch myself.