On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 12:11 PM Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Unless the `REF_SKIP_REFNAME_VERIFICATION` flag is set for an update,
> the refname of the update is verified for:
>
> - Ensuring it is not a pseudoref.
> - Checking the refname format.
>
> These checks are also be needed in a following commit where the function
s/are also be needed/will also be needed/
> to add reflog updates to the transaction is introduced. Extract the code
> out into a new static function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> refs.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> index f003e51c6bf5229bfbce8ce61ffad7cdba0572e0..732c236a3fd0cf324cc172b48d3d54f6dbadf4a4 100644
> --- a/refs.c
> +++ b/refs.c
> @@ -1196,6 +1196,29 @@ struct ref_update *ref_transaction_add_update(
> return update;
> }
>
> +static int transaction_refname_verification(const char *refname,
> + const struct object_id *new_oid,
> + unsigned int flags,
> + struct strbuf *err)
We have a number of functions named 'xxx_valid()' or 'xxx_ok()' while
I couldn't find any 'yyy_verification()' function, so it might be
better to name it 'transaction_refname_valid()' or maybe
'transaction_refname_ok()'.
Also I think it should probably return a bool so 1 if the refname is
valid and 0 otherwise, unless we have plans in the future to follow
different code paths depending on the different ways it is not valid.
> + ret = transaction_refname_verification(refname, new_oid, flags, err);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
Then the above could be just:
if (!transaction_refname_valid(refname, new_oid, flags, err))
return -1;
