Hi Phillip, Phillip Wood (phillip.wood123@gmail.com) a écrit : > Hi Alban > > I think this series is a great idea > > On 25/06/2020 13:19, Alban Gruin wrote: > -%<- > > diff --git a/builtin/merge-one-file.c b/builtin/merge-one-file.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..4992a6cd30 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/builtin/merge-one-file.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@ > > +/* > > + * Builtin "git merge-one-file" > > + * > > + * Copyright (c) 2020 Alban Gruin > > + * > > + * Based on git-merge-one-file.sh, written by Linus Torvalds. > > + * > > + * This is the git per-file merge script, called with > > + * > > + * $1 - original file SHA1 (or empty) > > + * $2 - file in branch1 SHA1 (or empty) > > + * $3 - file in branch2 SHA1 (or empty) > > + * $4 - pathname in repository > > + * $5 - original file mode (or empty) > > + * $6 - file in branch1 mode (or empty) > > + * $7 - file in branch2 mode (or empty) > > nit pick - these are now argv[1] etc rather than $1 etc > I'll change that, and replace "script" by "utility". > > + * > > + * Handle some trivial cases.. The _really_ trivial cases have > > + * been handled already by git read-tree, but that one doesn't > > + * do any merges that might change the tree layout. > > + */ > > + > > +#define USE_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS > > +#include "cache.h" > > +#include "builtin.h" > > +#include "commit.h" > > +#include "dir.h" > > +#include "lockfile.h" > > +#include "object-store.h" > > +#include "run-command.h" > > +#include "xdiff-interface.h" > > + > > +static int create_temp_file(const struct object_id *oid, struct strbuf > > *path) > > +{ > > + struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT; > > + struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT; > > + int ret; > > + > > + cp.git_cmd = 1; > > + argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "unpack-file", oid_to_hex(oid), NULL); > > + ret = pipe_command(&cp, NULL, 0, path, 0, &err, 0); > > + if (!ret && path->len > 0) > > + strbuf_trim_trailing_newline(path); > > + > > + fprintf(stderr, "%.*s", (int) err.len, err.buf); > > + strbuf_release(&err); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > I know others will disagree but personally I'm not a huge fan of rewriting > shell functions in C that forks other builtins and then converting the C to > use the internal apis, it seems a much better to just write the proper C > version the first time. This is especially true for simple function such as > the ones in this file. That way the reviewer gets a clear view of the final > code from the patch, rather than having to piece it together from a series of > additions and deletions. > I understand -- I'll squash the "rewrite" and "use internal APIs" patches together as a last step for the v2, so I'd be able to get them back with all the changes made in the v2 if needed. > -%<- > > +static int do_merge_one_file(const struct object_id *orig_blob, > > + const struct object_id *our_blob, > > + const struct object_id *their_blob, const char > > *path, > > + unsigned int orig_mode, unsigned int our_mode, > > unsigned int their_mode) > > +{ > > + int ret, source, dest; > > + struct strbuf src1 = STRBUF_INIT, src2 = STRBUF_INIT, orig = > > STRBUF_INIT; > > + struct child_process cp_merge = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT, > > + cp_checkout = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT, > > + cp_update = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT; > > + > > + if (our_mode == S_IFLNK || their_mode == S_IFLNK) { > > + fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: %s: Not merging symbolic link > > changes.\n", path); > > + return 1; > > + } else if (our_mode == S_IFGITLINK || their_mode == S_IFGITLINK) { > > + fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: %s: Not merging conflicting submodule > > changes.\n", > > + path); > > + return 1; > > + } > > + > > + create_temp_file(our_blob, &src1); > > + create_temp_file(their_blob, &src2); > > + > > + if (orig_blob) { > > + printf("Auto-merging %s\n", path); > > + create_temp_file(orig_blob, &orig); > > + } else { > > + printf("Added %s in both, but differently.\n", path); > > + create_temp_file(the_hash_algo->empty_blob, &orig); > > + } > > + > > + cp_merge.git_cmd = 1; > > + argv_array_pushl(&cp_merge.args, "merge-file", src1.buf, orig.buf, > > src2.buf, > > + NULL); > > + ret = run_command(&cp_merge); > > + > > + if (ret != 0) > > + ret = 1; > > + > > + cp_checkout.git_cmd = 1; > > + argv_array_pushl(&cp_checkout.args, "checkout-index", "-f", > > "--stage=2", > > + "--", path, NULL); > > + if (run_command(&cp_checkout)) > > + return 1; > > + > > + source = open(src1.buf, O_RDONLY); > > + dest = open(path, O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC); > > + > > + copy_fd(source, dest); > > + > > + close(source); > > + close(dest); > > + > > + unlink(orig.buf); > > + unlink(src1.buf); > > + unlink(src2.buf); > > + > > + strbuf_release(&src1); > > + strbuf_release(&src2); > > + strbuf_release(&orig); > > The whole business of creating temporary files and forking seems like a lot of > effort compared to calling ll_merge() which would also mean we respect any > merge attributes > > > + > > + if (ret) { > > + fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: "); > > + > > + if (!orig_blob) { > > I think the original does if (ret || !orig_blob) not && Good catch. > > + fprintf(stderr, "content conflict"); > > + if (our_mode != their_mode) > > + fprintf(stderr, ", "); > > sentence lego, in any case the message below should be printed regardless of > content conflicts. We should probably mark all these messages for translation > as well. > Yeah, I think I will replace them with two calls to `error()'. > -%<- > > +int cmd_merge_one_file(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > > +{ > > + struct object_id orig_blob, our_blob, their_blob, > > + *p_orig_blob = NULL, *p_our_blob = NULL, *p_their_blob = NULL; > > + unsigned int orig_mode = 0, our_mode = 0, their_mode = 0; > > + > > + if (argc != 8) > > + usage(builtin_merge_one_file_usage); > > + > > + if (!get_oid(argv[1], &orig_blob)) { > > + p_orig_blob = &orig_blob; > > + orig_mode = strtol(argv[5], NULL, 8); > > It would probably make sense to check that strtol() succeeds (and the mode is > sensible), and also that get_oid() fails because argv[1] is empty, not because > it is invalid. > Checking that `orig_mode' and friends are lower than 0800, and that `*argv[1]' is not equal to '\0' should be enough, right? > Thanks for working on this As always, thank you for your reviews. > Best Wishes > > Phillip > > Cheers, Alban