On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 02:08:28PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx>
Should the patch message be:
*: relax git_config_get_value_multi() result
instead of referring to git_configset_get_value_multi?
> ---
> builtin/submodule--helper.c | 10 ++++++++--
> submodule.c | 2 +-
> t/helper/test-config.c | 4 ++--
> versioncmp.c | 8 ++++----
> 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
All looks good here. I did a git grep for git_config_get_value_multi()
to make sure all of those spots were covered here. No comments from me,
other than a little thinking aloud below on a couple of the conversions.
> @@ -552,7 +553,9 @@ static int module_init(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> * If there are no path args and submodule.active is set then,
> * by default, only initialize 'active' modules.
> */
> - if (!argc && git_config_get_value_multi("submodule.active"))
> + if (!argc &&
> + (active_modules = git_config_get_value_multi("submodule.active")) &&
> + active_modules->nr)
Yuck ;-). I was going to suggest that the addition of a helper function
something like:
static int any_configured(const char *key)
{
const struct string_list *vals = git_configset_get_value_multi(key);
return vals && vals->nr;
}
would be worthwhile for this and the below conversion, but the change at
the end of this series makes it a moot point. So the temporary eye-sore
is just fine.
> diff --git a/t/helper/test-config.c b/t/helper/test-config.c
> index 4ba9eb65606..62644dd71d7 100644
> --- a/t/helper/test-config.c
> +++ b/t/helper/test-config.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ int cmd__config(int argc, const char **argv)
> }
> } else if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "get_value_multi")) {
> strptr = git_config_get_value_multi(argv[2]);
> - if (strptr) {
> + if (strptr && strptr->nr) {
> for (i = 0; i < strptr->nr; i++) {
> v = strptr->items[i].string;
> if (!v)
Good catch. I was thinking that this whole "if" statement could have
been dropped, but the goto that is hidden by the context meant that this
*would* have been a behavior change otherwise. So the conversion here is
appropriate.
Thanks,
Taylor
