On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:13:58PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> We can't use oid_to_hex() because we don't have a 'struct object_id'
> >> in the first place, as sha1dc only ever deals with 20 unsigned chars.
> >
> > Ah, you're right. I admit I am still getting up to speed on all of the
> > new hash-agnostic versions of the various functions.
>
> Thanks. I've amended this one and the range diff since the pushout
> yesterday looks like this.
Thanks. This first hunk is what I would have done:
> 1: 8a030f1796 ! 1: 02d21d4117 hex: drop sha1_to_hex()
> @@ Commit message
> hex: drop sha1_to_hex()
>
> There's only a single caller left of sha1_to_hex(), since everybody now
> - uses oid_to_hex() instead. This case is in the sha1dc wrapper, where we
> + uses hash_to_hex() instead. This case is in the sha1dc wrapper, where we
> print a hex sha1 when we find a collision. This one will always be sha1,
> - regardless of the current hash algorithm, so we can't use oid_to_hex()
> + regardless of the current hash algorithm, so we can't use hash_to_hex()
> here. In practice we'd probably not be running sha1 at all if it isn't
> the current algorithm, but it's possible we might still occasionally
> need to compute a sha1 in a post-sha256 world.
This second one is OK, but not entirely necessary:
> @@ cache.h: int hex_to_bytes(unsigned char *binary, const char *hex, size_t len);
> * buffers, making it safe to make multiple calls for a single statement, like:
> *
> - * printf("%s -> %s", sha1_to_hex(one), sha1_to_hex(two));
> -+ * printf("%s -> %s", oid_to_hex(one), oid_to_hex(two));
> ++ * printf("%s -> %s", hash_to_hex(one), hash_to_hex(two));
> */
> char *hash_to_hex_algop_r(char *buffer, const unsigned char *hash, const struct git_hash_algo *);
> char *oid_to_hex_r(char *out, const struct object_id *oid);
This one-liner leaves the types of "one" and "two" unspecified. :) So
it's not wrong to use hash_to_hex(), but maybe it's better to be pushing
people towards oid_to_hex() as their first choice? It probably doesn't
matter too much either way.
-Peff
