Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> However, if you feed a partial sha1 for which there are
> multiple matches, none of which satisfy the disambiguation hint, then we
> used to say "short SHA1 is ambiguous", and now we don't.
In finish_object_disambiguation(), if the candidate hasn't been
checked, there are two cases:
- It is the first and only object that match the prefix; or
- It replaced another object that matched the prefix but that
object did not satisfy ds->fn() callback.
And the former case we set ds->candidate_ok to true without doing
anything else, while for the latter we check the candidate, which
may set ds->candidate_ok to false.
At this point in the code, ds->candidate_ok can be false only if
this last-round check found that the candidate does not pass the
check, because the state after update_candidates() returns cannot
satisfy
!ds->ambiguous && ds->candidate_exists && ds->candidate_checked
and !ds->canidate_ok at the same time.
Hence, when we execute this "return", we know we have seen more than
one object that match the prefix (and none of them satisfied ds->fn),
meaning that we should say "the short name is ambiguous", not "there
is no object that matches the prefix".
Please sanity check; I think it is just this one-liner, but I am
having hard time convincing myself that it can be that simple.
sha1_name.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
index 2e2dbb8..c824bdd 100644
--- a/sha1_name.c
+++ b/sha1_name.c
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int finish_object_disambiguation(struct disambiguate_state *ds,
ds->fn(ds->candidate, ds->cb_data));
if (!ds->candidate_ok)
- return SHORT_NAME_NOT_FOUND;
+ return SHORT_NAME_AMBIGUOUS;
hashcpy(sha1, ds->candidate);
return 0;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html