On 9/30/2022 10:09 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> When 'git rebase -i --update-refs' generates the todo list for the
> rebased commit range, an 'update-ref' instruction is inserted for each
> ref that points to one of those commits, except for the rebased branch
> (because at the end of the rebase it will be updated anyway) and any
> refs that are checked out in a worktree; for the latter a "Ref <ref>
> checked out at '<worktree>'" comment is added. One of these comments
> can be missing under some circumstances: if the oldest commit with a
> ref pointing to it has multiple refs pointing to it, and at least one
> of those refs is checked out in a worktree, and one of them (but not
> the first) is checked out in the worktree associated with the last
> directory entry in '.git/worktrees'.
>
> The culprit is the add_decorations_to_list() function, which calls
> resolve_ref_unsafe() to figure out the refname of the rebased branch.
> However, resolve_ref_unsafe() can (and in this case does) return a
> pointer to a static buffer. Alas, add_decorations_to_list() holds on
> that static buffer until the end of the function, using its contents
> to compare refnames with the rebased branch, while it also calls a
> function that invokes refs_resolve_ref_unsafe() internally [1], and
> which overwrites the content of that static buffer, and messes up
> subsequent refname comparisons.
Good catch!
> - const char *head_ref = resolve_ref_unsafe("HEAD",
> + const char *head_ref = xstrdup_or_null(resolve_ref_unsafe("HEAD",
> RESOLVE_REF_READING,
> NULL,
> - NULL);
> + NULL));
Moving to a 'char *' matches our typical pattern of "I am responsible
for freeing this or passing that responsibility to someone else."
> +test_expect_success 'what should I call this?!' '
Perhaps 'with multiple refs, correctly report worktree' ?
Thanks,
-Stolee
