From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 21:27:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: move process_address_list earlier to avoid, uninitialized address error
Message-ID: <xmqq1qe0lui2.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <7e2c92ff-b42c-4b3f-a509-9d0785448262@amd.com>

Michael Strawbridge <michael.strawbridge@amd.com> writes:

> @@ -799,6 +799,10 @@ sub is_format_patch_arg {
>  
>  $time = time - scalar $#files;
>  
> +@initial_to = process_address_list(@initial_to);
> +@initial_cc = process_address_list(@initial_cc);
> +@initial_bcc = process_address_list(@initial_bcc);
> +

This does not look OK.  If we trace how @initial_to gets its value,

 - it first gets its value from @getopt_to and @config_to

 - if that is empty, and there is no $to_cmd, the end-user is
   interactively asked.

 - then process_address_list() is applied.

But this patch just swapped the second one and the third one, so
process_address_list() does not process what the end-user gave
interactively, no?

>  if ($validate) {
>         # FIFOs can only be read once, exclude them from validation.
>         my @real_files = ();

It almost feels like what need to move is not the setting of these
address lists, but the code that calls int validation callchain that
needs access to these address lists---the block that begins with the
above "if ($validate) {" needs to move below ...

> @@ -1099,10 +1103,6 @@ sub expand_one_alias {
>         return $aliases{$alias} ? expand_aliases(@{$aliases{$alias}}) : $alias;
>  }
>  
> -@initial_to = process_address_list(@initial_to);
> -@initial_cc = process_address_list(@initial_cc);
> -@initial_bcc = process_address_list(@initial_bcc);
> -

... this point, or something, perhaps?

>  if ($thread && !defined $initial_in_reply_to && $prompting) {
>         $initial_in_reply_to = ask(
>                 __("Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email (if any)? "),