On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 09:46:09PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 24 2022, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > - struct rev_info *revs = _data;
> > - struct object_info oi = OBJECT_INFO_INIT;
> > off_t ofs;
> > - enum object_type type;
> > + enum object_type type = OBJ_NONE;
> >
> > display_progress(progress_state, ++nr_seen);
> >
> > @@ -3215,20 +3213,25 @@ static int add_object_entry_from_pack(const struct object_id *oid,
> > if (!want_object_in_pack(oid, 0, &p, &ofs))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - oi.typep = &type;
> > - if (packed_object_info(the_repository, p, ofs, &oi) < 0)
> > - die(_("could not get type of object %s in pack %s"),
> > - oid_to_hex(oid), p->pack_name);
> > - else if (type == OBJ_COMMIT) {
> > - /*
> > - * commits in included packs are used as starting points for the
> > - * subsequent revision walk
> > - */
> > - add_pending_oid(revs, NULL, oid, 0);
> > + if (p) {
> > + struct rev_info *revs = _data;
> > + struct object_info oi = OBJECT_INFO_INIT;
> > +
> > + oi.typep = &type;
> > + if (packed_object_info(the_repository, p, ofs, &oi) < 0) {
> > + die(_("could not get type of object %s in pack %s"),
> > + oid_to_hex(oid), p->pack_name);
> > + } else if (type == OBJ_COMMIT) {
> > + /*
> > + * commits in included packs are used as starting points for the
> > + * subsequent revision walk
> > + */
> > + add_pending_oid(revs, NULL, oid, 0);
> > + }
> > +
> > + stdin_packs_found_nr++;
> > }
> >
> > - stdin_packs_found_nr++;
> > -
> > create_object_entry(oid, type, 0, 0, 0, p, ofs);
>
> Not rhetorical, since I have no idea: Is the behavior change here to
> make create_object_entry with type=OBJ_NONE desired? I.e. do we actually
> want to create object entries for OBJ_NONE?
This is intentional. OBJ_NONE tells create_object_entry() "we don't know
the type of this object yet", and then `check_object()` (which does the
bulk of the work in the "Counting objects" phase) goes through and fills
in any missing type information.
The caller in `builtin/pack-objects.c::read_object_list_from_stdin()` is
a good example of this (all of the objects created this way start out
with OBJ_NONE).
> If that is the case I for one would find this a bit easier to follow
> like this, even if it has some minor duplication, i.e. the intent is
> clearer:
>
> diff --git a/builtin/pack-objects.c b/builtin/pack-objects.c
> index ffeaecd1d84..a447f6d5164 100644
> --- a/builtin/pack-objects.c
> +++ b/builtin/pack-objects.c
> @@ -3202,7 +3202,6 @@ static int add_object_entry_from_pack(const struct object_id *oid,
> void *_data)
> {
> off_t ofs;
> - enum object_type type = OBJ_NONE;
>
> display_progress(progress_state, ++nr_seen);
>
> @@ -3216,6 +3215,7 @@ static int add_object_entry_from_pack(const struct object_id *oid,
> if (p) {
> struct rev_info *revs = _data;
> struct object_info oi = OBJECT_INFO_INIT;
> + enum object_type type;
>
> oi.typep = &type;
> if (packed_object_info(the_repository, p, ofs, &oi) < 0) {
> @@ -3230,9 +3230,11 @@ static int add_object_entry_from_pack(const struct object_id *oid,
> }
>
> stdin_packs_found_nr++;
> - }
>
> - create_object_entry(oid, type, 0, 0, 0, p, ofs);
> + create_object_entry(oid, type, 0, 0, 0, p, ofs);
> + } else {
> + create_object_entry(oid, OBJ_NONE, 0, 0, 0, p, ofs);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Or the same with adding "type = OBJ_NONE" to the "else" branch, leaving
> the initial "type" uninitialized"?
I'd be fine with that (and don't really have a very strong opinion
either way). Let's see if anybody else has thoughts about it, and then
I'm happy to change it in a subsequent version.
Thanks,
Taylor
