On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:06:56AM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > So it sounds like removing an empty header is problematic in most cases, > but adding a new variable to an existing empty header should not be...? I think it's less problematic, though there are still some funny cases. Like: [foo] # comments for the "foo" section # comments introducing the "bar" section [bar] Ideally the new entry goes in between the two comments. But I don't think it would be unreasonable to add it right after "[foo]". In this example, using the blank line as a hint might be useful, but that's going to be a lot harder to coax out of the callback-parser as syntactic event. > I looked at the code, and had a rough sketch that works as follows: > > * Make git_parse_source() call the callback in a special way to note > that a section header is seen (I hacked it by passing a special value, > a pointer to a global string, as the second argument) We'd want to make sure that didn't kick in for "regular" callers, with some kind of option (or, blech, a global variable that changes the behavior of git_parse_source(), though the config code is already full of them). > * Add a new store.last_section_offset field > > * In store_aux(), if it's getting the special value, and the section > name matches, save the offset in store.last_section_offset Make sense. > * In git_config_set_multivar_in_file_gently() right before the "write > the first part of the config" comment, test that > (store.seen == 1 && copy_begin == 0 && copy_end == contents_sz > && store.last_section_offset > 0) > and if so, write the contents up to that point, and set copy_begin; > if the condition is false, do the same thing it does now This part I'm not sure about. Naively I'd think you could do with less special-casing here. If we want to add "foo.two" and find: [foo] one = whatever then we mark the end of that line as the point we want to copy up to, and then add our new "two = ..." line. Conceptually if we see just: [foo] we should be able to kick in the same code. So it seems like the logic would all be in the detection and setting of the offset. But I am not sure I understand all of the code here, and it's rather complicated. So there is probably a good reason that wouldn't work. > It looks to me like something like this can work, but it's very hacky > because I wanted to see if it can work quickly, and because I don't know > if this kind of a solution will be wanted, and because I don't know > enough about that code in general. Making it be an actual solution > involves a better way to call the callback in a special way (my hack > does the special thing only if `fn==store_aux`, but it shouldn't), > calling it after the last variable in a section is seen so it's added > after that. > > So, will something like this be acceptable? If so, is there anyone who > I can ask questions about the code? Yeah, I think this general strategy is the smallest change that could work. What I think would be much more sane in general is to parse the whole thing into a tree (or even a flat list of events), marking each syntactically as a section header, a key, a comment, a run of whitespace, and so on. And then do manipulations on that tree (e.g., walk down to the section of interest, add a new key at the end), and then reformat the tree back into a stream of bytes. That lets you separate the policy logic from the parsing, and do high-level operations that might involve multiple passes or backtracking in the tree (e.g., walk to the section, walk past any existing keys, walk past any comments but _not_ past any blank lines, then add the new key). There are other other upsides, too. For example, the current code cannot write multiple unrelated keys in a single pass. The downsides is that it's a complete rewrite of the code. So it's a _lot_ more work, and it carries more risk of regression. So please don't take this as "no, your solution isn't OK; you have to do the rewrite". We've been living with band-aids on the config code for a decade, so I am OK with one more. -Peff -- 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