I haven't had a chance to look at the cocci script, but I did have one
thought...
Derrick pointed out, 14438c4 added both oideq and hasheq.
It might be good to have a similar check for hasheq, if there is not
one already.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:01 AM Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
<eantoranz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, it looks obviously correct. I am puzzled why "make coccicheck"
> > doesn't find this, though. +cc René, as my favorite target for
> > coccinelle nerd-snipes. :)
> >
>
> I added this to contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci in v2.27.0
>
> @@
> identifier f != oideq;
> expression E1, E2;
> @@
> - !oidcmp(E1, E2)
> + oideq(E1, E2)
>
> And it found it:
>
> $ cat contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci.patch
> diff -u -p a/blame.c b/blame.c
> --- a/blame.c
> +++ b/blame.c
> @@ -1352,8 +1352,7 @@ static struct blame_origin *find_origin(
> else {
> int compute_diff = 1;
> if (origin->commit->parents &&
> - !oidcmp(&parent->object.oid,
> - &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid))
> + oideq(&parent->object.oid,
> &origin->commit->parents->item->object.oid))
> compute_diff = maybe_changed_path(r, origin, bd);
>
> if (compute_diff)
>
>
> Do I need to add more things into the coccinelle definition so that it
> is more restrictive in terms of the
> expression we are hunting down?
