From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 17:47:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] sha1_name: get_sha1_with_context learns to follow symlinks
Message-ID: <xmqq8ucwgw8o.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1431203769-11855-2-git-send-email-dturner@twopensource.com>

dturner@twopensource.com writes:

> -#define GET_SHA1_QUIETLY        01
> -#define GET_SHA1_COMMIT         02
> -#define GET_SHA1_COMMITTISH     04
> -#define GET_SHA1_TREE          010
> -#define GET_SHA1_TREEISH       020
> -#define GET_SHA1_BLOB	       040
> -#define GET_SHA1_ONLY_TO_DIE 04000
> +#define GET_SHA1_QUIETLY           01
> +#define GET_SHA1_COMMIT            02
> +#define GET_SHA1_COMMITTISH        04
> +#define GET_SHA1_TREE             010
> +#define GET_SHA1_TREEISH          020
> +#define GET_SHA1_BLOB             040
> +#define GET_SHA1_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS 0100
> +#define GET_SHA1_ONLY_TO_DIE    04000

There is nothing wrong per-se, but this effort for aligning looks
amusing ;-) Perhaps the next person who wants to mimick this pattern
will order their constants in such a way that gives a shoter code to
a symbol with a longer name?

> diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
> index 6d10f05..325f666 100644
> --- a/sha1_name.c
> +++ b/sha1_name.c
> @@ -1434,15 +1434,22 @@ static int get_sha1_with_context_1(const char *name,
>  			new_filename = resolve_relative_path(filename);
>  			if (new_filename)
>  				filename = new_filename;
> -			ret = get_tree_entry(tree_sha1, filename, sha1, &oc->mode);
> -			if (ret && only_to_die) {
> -				diagnose_invalid_sha1_path(prefix, filename,
> -							   tree_sha1,
> -							   name, len);
> +			if (flags & GET_SHA1_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS) {
> +				ret = get_tree_entry_follow_symlinks(tree_sha1,
> +					filename, sha1, &oc->symlink_path,
> +					&oc->mode);
> +			} else {
> +				ret = get_tree_entry(tree_sha1, filename,
> +						     sha1, &oc->mode);
> +				if (ret && only_to_die) {
> +					diagnose_invalid_sha1_path(prefix,
> +								   filename,
> +								   tree_sha1,
> +								   name, len);
> +				}
>  			}

> -			hashcpy(oc->tree, tree_sha1);
>  			strlcpy(oc->path, filename, sizeof(oc->path));
> -
> +			hashcpy(oc->tree, tree_sha1);

Did the order and additional blank line matter here?  I think you'd
prefer to keep these two lines as before...

>  			free(new_filename);
>  			return ret;
>  		} else {
> @@ -1469,5 +1476,7 @@ void maybe_die_on_misspelt_object_name(const char *name, const char *prefix)
>  
>  int get_sha1_with_context(const char *str, unsigned flags, unsigned char *sha1, struct object_context *orc)
>  {
> +	if (flags & GET_SHA1_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS && flags & GET_SHA1_ONLY_TO_DIE)
> +		die("BUG: incompatible flags for get_sha1_with_context");
>  	return get_sha1_with_context_1(str, flags, NULL, sha1, orc);
>  }

Other than that, the patch looks good.

Thanks.