On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Michael Haggerty <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 02:42 PM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Michael Haggerty <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2015 05:39 AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> + if (type == FILTER_REFS_BRANCHES)
>>>> + ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler,
>>>> "refs/heads/", broken, &ref_cbdata);
>>>> + else if (type == FILTER_REFS_REMOTES)
>>>> + ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler,
>>>> "refs/remotes/", broken, &ref_cbdata);
>>>> + else if (type == FILTER_REFS_TAGS)
>>>> + ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler,
>>>> "refs/tags/", broken, &ref_cbdata);
>>>> + else if (type & FILTER_REFS_ALL) {
>>>> + ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler, "",
>>>> broken, &ref_cbdata);
>>>> + if (type & FILTER_REFS_DETACHED_HEAD)
>>>> + head_ref(ref_filter_handler, &ref_cbdata);
>>>
>>> The usual promise of the for_each_ref functions is that they stop
>>> iterating if the function ever returns a nonzero value. So the above
>>> should be
>>>
>>> if (! ret && (type & FILTER_REFS_DETACHED_HEAD))
>>> ret = head_ref(ref_filter_handler, &ref_cbdata);
>>>
>>> Also, these functions usually iterate in lexicographic order, so I think
>>> you should process HEAD before the others.
>>
>> This is done on purpose, cause we need to print the HEAD ref separately
>> so we print the last ref_array_item in the ref_array, free that memory and
>> sort and print the rest, hence HEAD ref is attached to the last.
>
> Without having looked at the other patches, this makes me wonder whether
> it makes sense to store HEAD in the ref_array at all or whether it
> should be handled separately.
>
Well then we'd need another ref_array just for that, that also could
be an option.
But apart from printing it first, everything else is the same for all the refs.
>>> But there's another problem here. It seems like
>>> FILTER_REFS_DETACHED_HEAD is only processed if (type & FILTER_REFS_ALL)
>>> is nonzero. But shouldn't it be allowed to process *only* HEAD?
>>>
>>> So, finally, I think this code should look like
>>>
>>> else if (!filter->kind)
>>> die("filter_refs: invalid type");
>>> else {
>>> if (filter->kind & FILTER_REFS_DETACHED_HEAD)
>>> ret = head_ref(ref_filter_handler, &ref_cbdata);
>>> if (! ret && (filter->kind & FILTER_REFS_ALL))
>>> ret =
>>> for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler, "", broken, &ref_cbdata);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> So finally something like this perhaps
>>
>> if (!filter->kind)
>> die("filter_refs: invalid type");
>> else {
>> if (filter->kind == FILTER_REFS_BRANCHES)
>> ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler,
>> "refs/heads/", broken, &ref_cbdata);
>> else if (filter->kind == FILTER_REFS_REMOTES)
>> ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler,
>> "refs/remotes/", broken, &ref_cbdata);
>> else if (filter->kind == FILTER_REFS_TAGS)
>> ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler,
>> "refs/tags/", broken, &ref_cbdata);
>> else if (filter->kind & FILTER_REFS_ALL)
>> ret = for_each_reftype_fullpath(ref_filter_handler, "",
>> broken, &ref_cbdata);
>> if (filter->kind & FILTER_REFS_DETACHED_HEAD)
>> head_ref(ref_filter_handler, &ref_cbdata);
>> }
>
> Yes, but the last test should be
>
> if (!ret && (filter->kind & FILTER_REFS_DETACHED_HEAD))
>
> unless you have a reason not to follow the usual convention that a
> nonzero return value from fn means that the iteration should be aborted.
>
No, of course, I missed that while typing here.
--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
