> >> * Inlining the "remote_urls" in the struct makes its management easier; > >> and the free/NULL checks just check .nr now, and string_list_clear() can be > >> unconditional. > > > > I don't think we can do this - nr might still be 0 after a scan if we > > don't have remote URLs for some reason, so we still need to distinguish > > between not-scanned and scanned-with-zero-URLs. > > You mean so that we don't double-free? The way string_list_clear() > protects against that, but maybe there's something else. > > Whatever it is (if there's anything) it could use test coverage then :) No - we only want to do one scan per config read. If we scan and there are no remote URLs, with your scheme, next time we encounter another includeIf.hasconfig, we would need to scan again (because nr is still 0). With my scheme, we can see that the pointer is non-NULL, so we know that we have already scanned. > >> * It would be nice if e.g. the "includeIf.hasconfig:remote.*.url globs" test > >> were split up by condition, but maybe that's a hassle (would need a small helper). > >> > >> Just something that would have helped while hacking on this, i.e. now most of it > >> was an all-or-nothing failure & peek at the trace output > > > > What do you mean by condition? There seems to only be one condition > > (whether the URL is there or not), unless you were thinking of smaller > > subdivisions. > > Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the intent here, but aren't you trying > to guard against the case of having a ~/.gitconfig that includes > ~/.gitconfig.d/for-this-url, and *that* file in turns changes the > remote's "url" in its config, followed by another "include if url > matches" condition therein? > > I.e. I read (more like skimmed) the documentation & test at the end as > forbidding that, but maybe that's OK? If we're including "~/.gitconfig.d/for-this-url" by includeIf.hasconfig, then yes, I'm guarding against that and other similar conditions. > > We can decide later what the future facility will be, but I envision > > that we will not allow included files to set config that can affect any > > include directives in use. So, for example, if I have a user.email-based > > include, none of my config-conditionally included files can set user.email. > > I didn't look deeply at the implementation at all, but why would this be > a problem? > > You parse ~/.gitconfig, it has user.name=foo, then right after in that > file we do: > > [includeIf "hasconfig:user.name:*foo*"] > path = ~/.gitconfig.d/foo > > Now the top of ~/.gitconfig.d/foo we have: > > [user] > name = bar > [includeIf "hasconfig:user.name:*bar*"] > path = ~/.gitconfig.d/bar > > Why would it matter that we included on user.name=foo before? > > Doesn't that only matter *while* we process that first "path" line? Once > we move past it we update our configset to user.name=bar once we hit the > "name" line of the included file. > > Then when we get another "hasconfig:user.name" we just match it to our > current user.name=*bar*. > > No? > > Anyway, I think it's fine to punt on it for now or whatever, just > curious... Well, we can't punt on it because what you describe also applies to remote URL :-) So what you're saying is that once we have decided to include a file, we always include it in its entirety regardless of whether the condition changes during the file's include. That's reasonable, but other people could have differing opinions. In this case, I think it's fine just to prohibit it entirely. In the future, we may look into relaxing this condition.
