Re: [PATCH v9 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 15, 2014, 21:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqr41mthg9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <53C5828F.2050005@web.de>
Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:
Show 19 quoted lines
> On 07/13/2014 10:28 PM, David Turner wrote:
>> From: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
> []
>> diff --git a/cache-tree.c b/cache-tree.c
>> index 7fa524a..f951d7d 100644
>> --- a/cache-tree.c
>> +++ b/cache-tree.c
>> @@ -239,9 +239,12 @@ static int update_one(struct cache_tree *it,
>> struct strbuf buffer;
>> int missing_ok = flags & WRITE_TREE_MISSING_OK;
>> int dryrun = flags & WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN;
>> + int repair = flags & WRITE_TREE_REPAIR;
>> int to_invalidate = 0;
>> int i;
>> + assert(!(dryrun && repair));
> I think something in the spirit of
> die("dryrun and repaiir can not be used together"\n)
> Would be nicer to the user as well as being more reliable (as assert
> may be a no-op in some systems)While it is a good suggestion *not* to attempt validating the end-user input with assert() for the reason you state, I think for this particular case, these flags only come from the code and assert() to catch programming errors would be sufficient.
Besides, as discussed elsewhere, WRITE_TREE_DRY_RUN should not be used, and the support for it should be dropped. It is broken in that the code path that leads to update_one() may correctly compute tree object names and stuff them in the cache-tree, higher layer code would then complain on such a cache-tree that records tree objects that do not exist.