On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 12:55 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -358,6 +363,8 @@ int block_reader_first_key(struct block_reader *br, struct strbuf *key)
> > int n = reftable_decode_key(key, &extra, empty, in);
> > if (n < 0)
> > return n;
> > + if (!key->len)
> > + return -1;
>
> It is curious that this gets a different error out of the same
> sequence, i.e. decode-key did not return an error but the length of
> the key happens to be 0, not FORMAT_ERROR.
fixed.
> > --- a/reftable/writer.c
> > +++ b/reftable/writer.c
> > @@ -240,14 +240,13 @@ static int writer_add_record(struct reftable_writer *w,
> >
> > writer_reinit_block_writer(w, reftable_record_type(rec));
> > err = block_writer_add(w->block_writer, rec);
> > - if (err < 0) {
> > + if (err == -1) {
> > /* we are writing into memory, so an error can only mean it
> > * doesn't fit. */
> > err = REFTABLE_ENTRY_TOO_BIG_ERROR;
> > goto done;
> > }
> >
> > - err = 0;
>
> Is this "doesn't fit" related to "we catch 0-length keys", or an
> unrelated fix was included in this step by "rebase -i" mistake?
We don't want to reinterpret API_ERROR (from block_writer_add) as
ENTRY_TOO_BIG_ERROR, so we have to tweak the condition here.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich
I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays.
--
Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Liana Sebastian
