Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> - refname = commit->util;
> + refname = *revision_sources_peek(&revision_sources, commit);
At first glance, I thought that the reason why this uses _peek() is
because the "sources" is expected to only sparsely be populated,
perhaps because get_tags_and_duplicates() annotates only the tips
mentioned on the command line via rev_cmdline mechanism and this
code does not want to auto-vivify the slot, only to read NULL from
it.
But the code that follows this point liberally uses refname without
checking if it is NULL, so I am not quite sure what is going on. In
any case, wouldn't *slab_peek() an anti-pattern? You use _peek()
because you expect that a slot is not yet allocated for a commit,
you desire not to vivify all the slots for all the commits, and
instead you are prepared to see a NULL returned from the call. But
I do not think that is what is happening here, so shouldn't it be
using _at() instead of _peek()?
> if (anonymize) {
> refname = anonymize_refname(refname);
> anonymize_ident_line(&committer, &committer_end);
> @@ -862,10 +864,11 @@ static void get_tags_and_duplicates(struct rev_cmdline_info *info)
> * This ref will not be updated through a commit, lets make
> * sure it gets properly updated eventually.
> */
> - if (commit->util || commit->object.flags & SHOWN)
> + if (*revision_sources_at(&revision_sources, commit) ||
> + commit->object.flags & SHOWN)
Here it uses *slab_at() which makes more sense.
