On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 02:13:53PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Just as the prefix-less variant was idempotent and that was the > > reason why cmd_diff_files() had its own precompose() even if the > > incoming argv[] is supposed to be already precomposed because it > > was processed in another call to precompose() in run_builtin(), > > this patch keeps these seemingly redundant calls, because it is not > > meant as a clean-up but as a bugfix for the prefix part. > > > > OK. ... Ah, no, the call in run_builtin() is a new thing. We didn't > > have it, and the redundant call is what this patch introduced, so > > we need to be a bit more careful about the analysis here. It is one > > thing to say "we leave the existing iffy code and address only a > > single bug" and do so. It is entirely different to say so and then > > do "we introduce an iffy code and address only a single bug". We > > need to admit that what we added _is_ iffy but supposed to be safe. > > Just saying "it is supposed to be safe" without saying why it is > > iffy is dishonest and does not help future developers who may want > > to jump in and clean the code. > > > > Perhaps > > > > Now add it into git.c::run_builtin() as well. Existing > > precompose calls in diff-files.c and others would become > > redundant but because we do not want to make sure that there > > is no way for the control to reach them without passing > > run_builtin(), we'll keep them in place just in case. The > > calls to precompose() are idempotent so it should not hurt. > > > > or something? > > FYI, I've tweaked the proposed log message like the following before > queuing. I think that would be explicit enough to remind us that we > may be able to improve the situation fairly easily. > Thanks for helping me out. That gives me some time to look deeper and prepare more test cases ana a then cleanup on top of this patch (later).
