On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 08:41:08AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Also, I think we don't typically call the value of a symbolic ref
> > "pointee", but "target". Searching for "pointee" in our codebase only
> > gives a single hit, and that one is not related to symbolic refs.
>
> Yesterday while I was studying for reviewing this series, I saw some
> existing code that call them "referent". There may also be "target".
Ah, true, I totally forgot about "referent". I guess we use both, but it
would of course be great if we only had a single term to refer them.
Referent seems to be used more widely, at least in the refs subsystem.
> >> + if (!newline_pos || *(newline_pos + 1)) {
> >> + ret = fsck_report_ref(o, report,
> >> + FSCK_MSG_REF_MISSING_NEWLINE,
> >> + "missing newline");
> >> + }
> >
> > The second condition `*(newline_pos + 1)` checks whether there is any
> > data after the newline, doesn't it? That indicates a different kind of
> > error than "missing newline", namely that there is trailing garbage. I
> > guess we'd want to report a separate info-level message for this.
> >
> > Also, shouldn't we use `strchr` instead of `strrchr()`? Otherwise, we're
> > only checking for trailing garbage after the _last_ newline, not after
> > the first one.
>
> None of the above. It should strbuf_rtrim() and if we removed
> anything but just a single terminating LF, we are looking at
> something we wouldn't ahve written. The next check_refname_format()
> call would then find "trailing garbage".
Fair.
> - "refs/heads/master \n " gets rtrimmed to "refs/heads/master",
> which is "valid but curious".
Okay. This _may_ be something to generate an info message for, mostly in
the same spirit as we want to do it for direct refs.
> - "refs/heads/main trash\n " becomes "refs/heads/main trash",
> which is outright bad.
Yeah, this one should be an error indeed.
Patrick
