Michael Haggerty <[email protected]> writes:
> It is nonsensical (and a little bit dangerous) to use REF_ISPRUNING
> without REF_NODEREF. Forbid it explicitly. Change the one REF_ISPRUNING
> caller to pass REF_NODEREF too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <[email protected]>
> ---
> This also makes later patches a bit clearer.
I wonder if it is more future-proof to solve this by doing
-#define REF_ISPRUNING 0x04
+#define REF_ISPRUNING (0x04 | REF_NODEREF)
instead. It makes the intention clear that pruning is always about
the single level (i.e. no-deref).
> refs.c | 3 +++
> refs/files-backend.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c
> index ba14105..5dc2473 100644
> --- a/refs.c
> +++ b/refs.c
> @@ -790,6 +790,9 @@ int ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction
> *transaction,
> if (transaction->state != REF_TRANSACTION_OPEN)
> die("BUG: update called for transaction that is not open");
>
> + if ((flags & REF_ISPRUNING) && !(flags & REF_NODEREF))
> + die("BUG: REF_ISPRUNING set without REF_NODEREF");
> +
> if (new_sha1 && !is_null_sha1(new_sha1) &&
> check_refname_format(refname, REFNAME_ALLOW_ONELEVEL)) {
> strbuf_addf(err, "refusing to update ref with bad name '%s'",
> diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c
> index 9faf17c..8fcbd7d 100644
> --- a/refs/files-backend.c
> +++ b/refs/files-backend.c
> @@ -2116,7 +2116,7 @@ static void prune_ref(struct ref_to_prune *r)
> transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
> if (!transaction ||
> ref_transaction_delete(transaction, r->name, r->sha1,
> - REF_ISPRUNING, NULL, &err) ||
> + REF_ISPRUNING | REF_NODEREF, NULL, &err) ||
> ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err)) {
> ref_transaction_free(transaction);
> error("%s", err.buf);
--
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
