From: Philip Oakley Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:35:25 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sparse-index API: fix TODO, BUG() out on NULL ensure_full_index() Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 10/01/2023 06:17, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Make the ensure_full_index() function stricter, and have it only > accept a non-NULL "struct index_state". This function (and this > behavior) was added in [1]. > > The only reason it needed to be this lax was due to interaction with > repo_index_has_changes(). See the addition of that code in . Missing reference. Should this be [2]? > This > fixes one of the TODO comments added in 0c18c059a15, the other one was > already removed in [3]. > > The other reason for why this was needed dates back to interaction > with code added in [4]. In [5] we started calling ensure_full_index() > in unpack_trees(), but the caller added in 34110cd4e39 wants to pass > us a NULL "dst_index". Let's instead do the NULL check in > unpack_trees() itself. > > 1. 4300f8442a2 (sparse-index: implement ensure_full_index(), 2021-03-30) > 2. 0c18c059a15 (read-cache: ensure full index, 2021-04-01) > 3. d76723ee531 (status: use sparse-index throughout, 2021-07-14). > 4. 34110cd4e39 (Make 'unpack_trees()' have a separate source and > destination index, 2008-03-06) > 5. 6863df35503 (unpack-trees: ensure full index, 2021-03-30) > > Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason -- Philip