On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In commit 967dfd4 ("sequencer: use trailer's trailer layout",
> 2016-11-29), sequencer was taught to use the same mechanism as
> interpret-trailers to determine the nature of the trailer of a commit
> message (referred to as the "footer" in sequencer.c). However, the
> requirement that a footer end in a newline character was inadvertently
> removed. Restore that requirement.
>
> While writing this commit, I noticed that if the "ignore_footer"
> parameter in "has_conforming_footer" is greater than the distance
> between the trailer start and sb->len, "has_conforming_footer" will
> return an unexpected result. This does not occur in practice, because
> "ignore_footer" is either zero or the return value of an invocation to
> "ignore_non_trailer", which only skips empty lines and comment lines.
> This commit contains a comment explaining this in the function's
> documentation.
>
> Reported-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Thanks for the bug report. Here's a fix - I've verified this with the
> way to reproduce provided in the original e-mail, and it seems to work
> now.
>
> The commit message of the referenced commit
> (7b309aef0463340d3ad5449d1f605d14e10a4225) does not end in a newline,
> which is probably why different behavior was observed with this commit
> (as compared to others).
Thanks for the fix. :)
Do we want to test for this use case in the future?
> @@ -151,6 +151,12 @@ static const char *get_todo_path(const struct replay_opts *opts)
> * Returns 1 for conforming footer
> * Returns 2 when sob exists within conforming footer
> * Returns 3 when sob exists within conforming footer as last entry
> + *
> + * A footer that does not end in a newline is considered non-conforming.
> + *
> + * ignore_footer, if not zero, should be the return value of an invocation to
> + * ignore_non_trailer. See the documentation of that function for more
> + * information.
> */
Makes sense. Maybe s/ignore_non_trailer/ignore_non_trailer()/ which makes
it easier to recognize it as a function? I'd also drop the last
sentence as it is
implied in the previous sentence (sort of).
Thanks,
Stefan