On 12/28, Stefan Beller wrote: > Every once in a while someone complains to the mailing list to have > run into this weird assertion[1]. > > The usual response from the mailing list is link to old discussions[2], > and acknowledging the problem stating it is known. > > For now just improve the user visible error message. > > [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=item-%3Enowildcard_len > [2] > http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/assert-failed-in-submodule-edge-case-td7628687.html > https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg249473.html > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> > --- > > Peff wrote: > > Don't you need to flip the logic here? An assert() triggers when the > > condition is not true, but an "if" does the opposite. So "assert(X)" > > should always become "if (!X) die(...)". > > Duh! and it should compile as well. > > Thanks, > Stefan > > pathspec.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c > index 22ca74a126..4724d522f2 100644 > --- a/pathspec.c > +++ b/pathspec.c > @@ -313,8 +313,11 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item > *item, > } > > /* sanity checks, pathspec matchers assume these are sane */ > - assert(item->nowildcard_len <= item->len && > - item->prefix <= item->len); > + if (item->nowildcard_len > item->len || > + item->prefix > item->len) > + die (_("Path leads inside submodule '%s', but the submodule " > + "was not recognized, i.e. not initialized or deleted"), > + item->original); > return magic; > }
Turns out I should comment on the most recent version of the patch :P This looks better to me. (It resolves the issue with using a variable not in scope). -- Brandon Williams
