On 24-ene-2023 10:35:26, Phillip Wood wrote:
> On 22/01/2023 23:21, Rubén Justo wrote:
> > I tried to maintain the relationship and the role, too. Just introduce
> > the helper, as Phillip suggested and I think it is a good idea.
>
> When I suggested adding a helper I was thinking of something like
>
> static const struct worktree *do_find_shared_symref(struct worktree
> **worktrees,
> const char *symref,
> const char *target,
> int ignore_current)
> {
> /*
> * Body moved from find_share_symref() with a couple
> * of lines added to support ignore_current
> /*
> }
>
> const struct worktree *find_shared_symref(struct worktree **worktrees,
> const char *symref,
> const char *target)
> {
> return do_find_shared_symref(worktrees, symref, target, 0)
> }
>
> void die_if_checked_out(const char *branch, int ignore_current_worktree)
> {
> struct worktree **worktrees = get_worktrees();
> const struct worktree *wt;
>
> wt = do_find_shared_symref(worktrees, "HEAD", branch,
> ignore_current_worktree);
> /* rest unchanged */
> }
>
> The aim was to avoid changing the public api
I thought about a solution like the one you suggest. Also another one based on
iterations, something like wt_head_refs().... I ended up with
is_shared_symref(), it adds some value, I think.
The public API remains unchanged, and I like that the comment for
find_shared_ref(), which is an important note, is moved to is_shared_symref(),
which contains the essential work related to the comment.
die_if_checked_out() needs to iterate (here was the wt_heads_refs()), but my
intuition makes me think it's a good step since we might need another level,
I'm not sure yet but, like "die_if_if_checked_out(allow_if_current)".
I'm going to send a v3 addressing the issues Junio commented, still with the
is_shared_symref(). If the above reasoning doesn't work for you or if the
change as-is introduces any problem, I have no objection to
"do_find_shared_symref()".
Thank you.
