Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] rebase: fill `squash_onto' in get_replay_opts()

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Phillip,

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, Phillip Wood wrote:

> On 02/10/2019 09:16, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Phillip Wood wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alban
> > >
> > > On 25/09/2019 21:13, Alban Gruin wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >    builtin/rebase.c | 5 +++++
> > > >    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
> > > > index e8319d5946..2097d41edc 100644
> > > > --- a/builtin/rebase.c
> > > > +++ b/builtin/rebase.c
> > > > @@ -117,6 +117,11 @@ static struct replay_opts get_replay_opts(const
> > > > struct
> > > > rebase_options *opts)
> > > >     if (opts->strategy_opts)
> > > >      parse_strategy_opts(&replay, opts->strategy_opts);
> > > >    +	if (opts->squash_onto) {
> >
> > I guess it does not matter much, but shouldn't this be guarded against
> > the case where `replay.squash_onto` was already initialized? Like, `if
> > (opts->squash_onto && !replay.have_squash_onto)`?
>
> replay is uninitialized as this function takes a `struct rebase_opitons` and
> returns a new `struct replay_options` based on that.

Ooops, you're right. The `.` in `replay.have_squash_onto` should have
been a strong hint, eh?

Thanks,
Dscho

>
> Best Wishes
>
> Phillip
>
> >
> > Other than that, this patch makes sense to me.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Dscho
> >
> > > > +		oidcpy(&replay.squash_onto, opts->squash_onto);
> > > > +		replay.have_squash_onto = 1;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > >    	return replay;
> > > >    }
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>