shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The git-fsck(1) focuses on object database consistency check. It relies > on the "fsck_options" to interact with fsck error levels. However, > "fsck_options" aims at checking the object database which contains a lot > of fields only related to object database. > > In order to add ref operations, create a new struct named > "fsck_refs_options" and a new struct named "fsck_objs_options". Remove > object-related fields from "fsck_options" to "fsck_objs_options". Change > the "fsck_options" with three parts of members: > > 1. The "fsck_refs_options". > 2. The "fsck_objs_options". > 3. The common settings both for refs and objects. Because we leave > common settings in "fsck_options". The setup process could be fully > reused without any code changing. > > Also add related macros to align with the current code. Because we > remove some fields from "fsck_options" to "fsck_objs_options". Change > the influenced code to use the "fsck_options.objs_options" instead of > using "fsck_options" itself. > > The static function "report" provided by "fsck.c" aims at reporting the > problems related to object database which cannot be reused for refs. > Provide "fsck_refs_report" function to integrate the fsck error levels > into reference consistency check. > > Mentored-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> > Mentored-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> > --- This seems to be doing too many things at once, making the result a lot harder to review than necessary. At this point, nobody checks refs and reports problems with refs, so fsck_refs_report() has no callers and it is impossible to tell if the function signature of it, iow, the set of parameters it receives, is sufficient, for example. Stepping back a bit, it is true that (1) all existing checks are about "objects", and (2) all checks we want to implement around "objects" and "refs" can be split cleanly into these two categories? I am wondering if there are checks and reports that would benefit from having access to both objects and refs (e.g. when checking a ref, you may want to see both what the name of the ref is and what object the ref points at), in which case, being forced to implement such a check-and-report as "object" or "ref" that has access to only different subset of information may turn out to be too limiting. Yes, I am OK with having substructure in fsck_options, but I am doubting if it is a good idea to have a separate fsck_refs_report() that can only take "name" that is different from fsck.c::report(). For example, how would we ensure that refs/heads/foo is allowed to point at a commit object and nothing else, and how would we report a violation when we find that ref/heads/foo is pointing at a tag, i.e., "refs/heads/foo points at f665776185ad074b236c00751d666da7d1977dbe which is a tag". The fsck_refs_report() function is not equipped to do that; neither is .refs_options.error_func() that only takes "name". > +int fsck_refs_report(struct fsck_options *o, > + const char *name, > + enum fsck_msg_id msg_id, > + const char *fmt, ...) > ... > + va_start(ap, fmt); > + strbuf_vaddf(&sb, fmt, ap); > + ret = o->refs_options.error_func(o, name, msg_type, msg_id, sb.buf); > + strbuf_release(&sb); > + va_end(ap); Perhaps the code and data structure of the entire series may be capable of supporting such a check-and-report, but the primary point I am making is that among what [1/7] adds, we cannot sanely judge if these "refs" related additions are sensible by looking at [1/7]. Thanks.
