On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Teach 'is_staging_gitmodules_ok()' to be able to determine in the
> '.gitmodules' file has unstaged changes based on the passed in index
> instead of relying on a global varible which is set during the
variable
> submodule-config parsing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/mv.c | 2 +-
> builtin/rm.c | 2 +-
> submodule.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> submodule.h | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/mv.c b/builtin/mv.c
> index dcf6736b5..94fbaaa5d 100644
> --- a/builtin/mv.c
> +++ b/builtin/mv.c
> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static void prepare_move_submodule(const char *src, int first,
> struct strbuf submodule_dotgit = STRBUF_INIT;
> if (!S_ISGITLINK(active_cache[first]->ce_mode))
> die(_("Directory %s is in index and no submodule?"), src);
> - if (!is_staging_gitmodules_ok())
> + if (!is_staging_gitmodules_ok(&the_index))
> die(_("Please stage your changes to .gitmodules or stash them to proceed"));
> strbuf_addf(&submodule_dotgit, "%s/.git", src);
> *submodule_gitfile = read_gitfile(submodule_dotgit.buf);
> diff --git a/builtin/rm.c b/builtin/rm.c
> index 52826d137..4057e73fa 100644
> --- a/builtin/rm.c
> +++ b/builtin/rm.c
> @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> list.entry[list.nr].name = xstrdup(ce->name);
> list.entry[list.nr].is_submodule = S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode);
> if (list.entry[list.nr++].is_submodule &&
> - !is_staging_gitmodules_ok())
> + !is_staging_gitmodules_ok(&the_index))
> die (_("Please stage your changes to .gitmodules or stash them to proceed"));
> }
>
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> index b1965290f..46ec04d7c 100644
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
> @@ -37,18 +37,25 @@ static struct oid_array ref_tips_after_fetch;
> static int gitmodules_is_unmerged;
>
> /*
> - * This flag is set if the .gitmodules file had unstaged modifications on
> - * startup. This must be checked before allowing modifications to the
> - * .gitmodules file with the intention to stage them later, because when
> - * continuing we would stage the modifications the user didn't stage herself
> - * too. That might change in a future version when we learn to stage the
> - * changes we do ourselves without staging any previous modifications.
> + * Check if the .gitmodules file has unstaged modifications. This must be
> + * checked before allowing modifications to the .gitmodules file with the
> + * intention to stage them later, because when continuing we would stage the
> + * modifications the user didn't stage herself too. That might change in a
> + * future version when we learn to stage the changes we do ourselves without
> + * staging any previous modifications.
> */
> -static int gitmodules_is_modified;
> -
> -int is_staging_gitmodules_ok(void)
> +int is_staging_gitmodules_ok(const struct index_state *istate)
> {
> - return !gitmodules_is_modified;
> + int pos = index_name_pos(istate, GITMODULES_FILE, strlen(GITMODULES_FILE));
> +
> + if ((pos >= 0) && (pos < istate->cache_nr)) {
Why do we need the second check (pos < istate->cache_nr) ?
I would have assumed the first one suffices,
it might read better if turned around:
if (pos < 0)
return 1;
return (lstat(GITMODULES_FILE, &st) == 0 &&
ce_match_stat(istate->cache[pos], &st, 0) & DATA_CHANGED);
}
> @@ -231,11 +238,6 @@ void gitmodules_config(void)
> !memcmp(ce->name, ".gitmodules", 11))
> gitmodules_is_unmerged = 1;
> }
> - } else if (pos < active_nr) {
> - struct stat st;
> - if (lstat(".gitmodules", &st) == 0 &&
> - ce_match_stat(active_cache[pos], &st, 0) & DATA_CHANGED)
> - gitmodules_is_modified = 1;
> }
So this is where the check "pos < active_nr" is coming from,
introduced in 5fee995244 (submodule.c: add .gitmodules staging
helper functions, 2013-07-30) as well as d4e98b581b (Submodules:
Don't parse .gitmodules when it contains, merge conflicts, 2011-05-14).
If I am reading the docs for cache_name_pos correctly, we would
not need to check for the index exceeding active_cache,
but checking for the index not being out of bounds seems
to be wide spread.
