On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 04:05:59PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Every once in a while someone complains to the mailing list to have
> run into this weird assertion[1].
If people are running into it, it definitely should not be an assert,
nor a die("BUG"). It should be a regular die(), which your patch does.
So this is definitely a good step, even if the ultimate goal may be to
handle the case more gracefully (I say that without having even read the
background, or knowing what the right handling would be).
But...
> diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
> index 22ca74a126..d522f43331 100644
> --- a/pathspec.c
> +++ b/pathspec.c
> @@ -313,8 +313,11 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item,
> }
>
> /* sanity checks, pathspec matchers assume these are sane */
> - assert(item->nowildcard_len <= item->len &&
> - item->prefix <= item->len);
> + if (item->nowildcard_len <= item->len &&
> + item->prefix <= item->len)
> + die (_("Path leads inside submodule '%s', but the submodule "
> + "was not recognized, i.e. not initialized or deleted"),
> + ce->name);
Don't you need to flip the logic here? An assert() triggers when the
condition is not true, but an "if" does the opposite. So "assert(X)"
should always become "if (!X) die(...)".
-Peff