Re: [PATCH 01/14] revision: defensive programming
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 15, 2025, 17:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq8qmx23wv.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <604e67ee64167efd5282b9efabbcb6e72eeaf5e6.1747313140.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> > > On the off chance that `lookup_decoration()` cannot find anything, let > `leave_one_treesame_to_parent()` return gracefully instead of crashing.
But wouldn't it be a BUG("") worthy event for the treesame decoration not to exist for the commit object in question at this point of the code? Is it really defensive to silently pretend that nothing bad happened and to move forward?
Show 21 quoted lines
> Pointed out by CodeQL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
> revision.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index c4390f0938cb..59eae4eb8ba8 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -3359,6 +3359,9 @@ static int leave_one_treesame_to_parent(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *co
> struct commit_list *p;
> unsigned n;
>
> + if (!ts)
> + return 0;
> +
> for (p = commit->parents, n = 0; p; p = p->next, n++) {
> if (ts->treesame[n]) {
> if (p->item->object.flags & TMP_MARK) {