Hi Alban
On 12/02/2019 15:21, Alban Gruin wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> Le 12/02/2019 à 11:52, Phillip Wood a écrit :
>> Hi Alban
>>
>> I think this is almost there, I've got a couple of small comments below.
>>
>> On 10/02/2019 13:26, Alban Gruin wrote:
>>> -%<-
>>> diff --git a/builtin/rebase--interactive.c b/builtin/rebase--interactive.c
>>> index df19ccaeb9..c131fd4a27 100644
>>> --- a/builtin/rebase--interactive.c
>>> +++ b/builtin/rebase--interactive.c
>>> -%<-
>>> @@ -221,6 +222,11 @@ int cmd_rebase__interactive(int argc, const char
>>> **argv, const char *prefix)
>>> warning(_("--[no-]rebase-cousins has no effect without "
>>> "--rebase-merges"));
>>>
>>> + if (cmd && *cmd) {
>>> + string_list_split(&commands, cmd, '\n', -1);
>>
>> I'd suggest a comment along the lines of
>> /* As cmd always ends with a newline the last item is empty */
>>
>>> + --commands.nr;
>>
>> Style: commands.nr--
>>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> switch (command) {
>>> case NONE:
>>> if (!onto && !upstream)
>>> @@ -228,7 +234,7 @@ int cmd_rebase__interactive(int argc, const char
>>> **argv, const char *prefix)
>>>
>>> ret = do_interactive_rebase(&opts, flags, switch_to, upstream,
>>> onto,
>>> onto_name, squash_onto, head_name,
>>> restrict_revision,
>>> - raw_strategies, cmd, autosquash);
>>> + raw_strategies, &commands,
>>> autosquash);
>>> break;
>>> case SKIP: {
>>> struct string_list merge_rr = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
>>> @@ -262,11 +268,12 @@ int cmd_rebase__interactive(int argc, const char
>>> **argv, const char *prefix)
>>> ret = rearrange_squash(the_repository);
>>> break;
>>> case ADD_EXEC:
>>> - ret = sequencer_add_exec_commands(the_repository, cmd);
>>> + ret = sequencer_add_exec_commands(the_repository, &commands);
>>> break;
>>> default:
>>> BUG("invalid command '%d'", command);
>>> }
>>
>> Before freeing the string list it would be good to reset the number of
>> items with commands.nr++ (with a comment explaining why) so the NUL in
>> the last item gets freed.
>>
>>> + string_list_clear(&commands, 1);
>>
>> As we don't use item.util I think the second argument would be better as 0.
>>
>>> return !!ret;
>>> }
>
> FWIW I just stumbled across string_list_remove_empty_items(), which
> seems to do exactly the same thing, but that way we don’t have to do
> this kind of hacks.
Good find, that sounds like a much better solution.
>
>>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
>>> index 99e12c751e..82ca3432cd 100644
>>> --- a/sequencer.c
>>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>>> @@ -4505,21 +4505,27 @@ int sequencer_make_script(struct repository *r,
>>> FILE *out,
>>> * Add commands after pick and (series of) squash/fixup commands
>>> * in the todo list.
>>> */
>>> -int sequencer_add_exec_commands(struct repository *r,
>>> - const char *commands)
>>> +static void todo_list_add_exec_commands(struct todo_list *todo_list,
>>> + struct string_list *commands)
>>> {
>>> - const char *todo_file = rebase_path_todo();
>>> - struct todo_list todo_list = TODO_LIST_INIT;
>>> - struct strbuf *buf = &todo_list.buf;
>>> - size_t offset = 0, commands_len = strlen(commands);
>>> - int i, insert;
>>> + struct strbuf *buf = &todo_list->buf;
>>> + size_t base_offset = buf->len;
>>> + int i, insert, nr = 0, alloc = 0;
>>> + struct todo_item *items = NULL, *base_items = NULL;
>>>
>>> - if (strbuf_read_file(&todo_list.buf, todo_file, 0) < 0)
>>> - return error(_("could not read '%s'."), todo_file);
>>> + base_items = xcalloc(commands->nr, sizeof(struct todo_item));
>>> + for (i = 0; i < commands->nr; i++) {
>>> + size_t command_len = strlen(commands->items[i].string);
>>>
>>> - if (todo_list_parse_insn_buffer(r, todo_list.buf.buf, &todo_list)) {
>>> - todo_list_release(&todo_list);
>>> - return error(_("unusable todo list: '%s'"), todo_file);
>>> + strbuf_addstr(buf, commands->items[i].string);
>>> + strbuf_addch(buf, '\n');
>>> +
>>> + base_items[i].command = TODO_EXEC;
>>> + base_items[i].offset_in_buf = base_offset;
>>> + base_items[i].arg_offset = base_offset + strlen("exec ");
>>> + base_items[i].arg_len = command_len - strlen("exec ");
>>> +
>>> + base_offset += command_len + 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -4527,39 +4533,60 @@ int sequencer_add_exec_commands(struct repository
>>> *r,
>>> * are considered part of the pick, so we insert the commands *after*
>>> * those chains if there are any.
>>> */
>>> - insert = -1;
>>> - for (i = 0; i < todo_list.nr; i++) {
>>> - enum todo_command command = todo_list.items[i].command;
>>> -
>>> - if (insert >= 0) {
>>> - /* skip fixup/squash chains */
>>> - if (command == TODO_COMMENT)
>>> - continue;
>>> - else if (is_fixup(command)) {
>>> - insert = i + 1;
>>> - continue;
>>> - }
>>> - strbuf_insert(buf,
>>> - todo_list.items[insert].offset_in_buf +
>>> - offset, commands, commands_len);
>>> - offset += commands_len;
>>> - insert = -1;
>>
>> I like the simplification of using insert as a flag. Perhaps we should
>> document the assumptions. Maybe something like
>>
>> We insert the exec commands immediately after rearranging any fixups and
>> before the user edits the list. This means that a fixup chain can never
>> contain comments (any comments are empty picks that have been commented
>> out the the user did not specify --keep-empty) and so it is safe to
>> insert the exec command without looking at the command following the
>> comment.
>>
>
> I slightly reworded this and added it to the existing comment just
> before the for loop:
>
> /*
> * Insert <commands> after every pick. Here, fixup/squash chains
> * are considered part of the pick, so we insert the commands *after*
> * those chains if there are any.
> *
> * As we insert the exec commands immediatly after rearranging
> * any fixups and before the user edits the list, a fixup chain
> * can never contain comments (any comments are empty picks that
> * have been commented out because the user did not specify
> * --keep-empty). So, it is safe to insert an exec command
> * without looking at the command following a comment.
> */
>
That sounds good
Best Wishes
Phillip
>>> + insert = 0;
>>> + for (i = 0; i < todo_list->nr; i++) {
>>> + enum todo_command command = todo_list->items[i].command;
>>> + if (insert && !is_fixup(command)) {
>>> + ALLOC_GROW(items, nr + commands->nr, alloc);
>>> + COPY_ARRAY(items + nr, base_items, commands->nr);
>>> + nr += commands->nr;
>>> +
>>> + insert = 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (command == TODO_PICK || command == TODO_MERGE)
>>> - insert = i + 1;
>>> + ALLOC_GROW(items, nr + 1, alloc);
>>> + items[nr++] = todo_list->items[i];
>>> +
>>> + if (command == TODO_PICK || command == TODO_MERGE ||
>>> is_fixup(command))
>>
>> I'm not sure what the is_fixup() is for, if the command is a fixup then
>> it will have been preceded by a pick or merge so insert will already be 1
>>
>> I feel a bit mean suggesting a reroll when we're on v7 already but I
>> think these clean-ups would improve the maintainability of the code.
>> I'll take a look at the rest of the changes to this series sometime this
>> week.
>>
>> Best Wishes
>>
>> Phillip
>>
>
> Cheers,
> Alban
>
