From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:57:20 GMT
Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH] grep: fix worktree case in submodules
Message-ID: <xmqqwofyqjrz.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD0bH7ZNWFt3MfkAQf2tkF6CAgFj5FsZyc9zechg7MkCUw@mail.gmail.com>

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@usp.br> writes:
>
>> > @@ -598,7 +599,8 @@ static int grep_tree(struct grep_opt *opt, const struct pathspec *pathspec,
>> >                       free(data);
>> >               } else if (recurse_submodules && S_ISGITLINK(entry.mode)) {
>> >                       hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid,
>> > -                                           base->buf, base->buf + tn_len);
>> > +                                           base->buf, base->buf + tn_len,
>> > +                                           1); /* ignored */
>>
>> The trailing comment is misleading.  In the context of reviewing
>> this patch, we can probably tell it applies only to that "1", but
>> if you read only the postimage, the "ignored" comment looks as if
>> the call itself is somehow ignored by somebody unspecified.  It is
>> not clear at all that it is only about the final parameter.
>>
>> If you must...
>>
>>                 hit |= grep_submodule(opt, pathspec, &entry.oid,
>>                                       base->buf, base->buf + tn_len,
>>                                       1 /* ignored */);
>
> Yeah, I suggested adding an "/* ignored */" comment, but I was indeed
> thinking about something like this.
>
>> ... is a reasonable way to write it.

Thanks.  In this case, I am not sure if the comment here really
helps.  If anything, shouldn't there be a comment near the top of
grep_submodule() that says 'cached bit is meaningful only when you
feed an empty oid, aka "not grepping inside a tree object"'?