Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -1435,12 +1436,19 @@ static const char *push_to_checkout(unsigned char *hash,
> struct strvec *env,
> const char *work_tree)
> {
> + struct run_hooks_opt opt;
> + run_hooks_opt_init_sync(&opt);
> +
> strvec_pushf(env, "GIT_WORK_TREE=%s", absolute_path(work_tree));
> - if (run_hook_le(env->v, push_to_checkout_hook,
> - hash_to_hex(hash), NULL))
> + strvec_pushv(&opt.env, env->v);
> + strvec_push(&opt.args, hash_to_hex(hash));
> + if (run_hooks(push_to_checkout_hook, &opt)) {
> + run_hooks_opt_clear(&opt);
> return "push-to-checkout hook declined";
> - else
> + } else {
> + run_hooks_opt_clear(&opt);
> return NULL;
> + }
> }
OK, we opt_init(), futz with opt, call run_hooks() and opt_clear()
regardless of the outcome from run_hooks(). Narrow-sighted me
wonders if it makes the use of the API easier if run_hooks() did the
opt_clear() before it returns, but I haven't yet seen enough use at
this point to judge.
Thanks.
