Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] sha1_file: rename LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

> The LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT flag controls whether the
> lookup_replace_object() function is invoked by
> sha1_object_info_extended(), read_sha1_file_extended(), and
> lookup_replace_object_extended(), but it is not immediately clear which
> functions accept that flag.
>
> Therefore restrict this flag to only sha1_object_info_extended(),
> renaming it appropriately to OBJECT_INFO_LOOKUP_REPLACE and adding some
> documentation. Update read_sha1_file_extended() to have a boolean
> parameter instead, and delete lookup_replace_object_extended().
>
> parse_sha1_header() also passes this flag to
> parse_sha1_header_extended() since commit 46f0344 ("sha1_file: support
> reading from a loose object of unknown type", 2015-05-03), but that has
> had no effect since that commit. Therefore this patch also removes this
> flag from that invocation.

Yay, code reduction ;-).

> -/* object replacement */
> -#define LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT 1
> -extern void *read_sha1_file_extended(const unsigned char *sha1, enum object_type *type, unsigned long *size, unsigned flag);
> +extern void *read_sha1_file_extended(const unsigned char *sha1,
> +				     enum object_type *type,
> +				     unsigned long *size, int lookup_replace);

In general, I'd hesitate to regress the API from "unsigned flag"
(that is easier to extend) to "int is_foo" (that will either have to
be reverted back to "unsigned flag", or an overlong parameter list
"int is_foo, int is_bar, int is_baz, ...").  

But let's take this as-is and see how it evolves.

> @@ -3025,7 +3027,7 @@ int sha1_object_info(const unsigned char *sha1, unsigned long *sizep)
>  
>  	oi.typep = &type;
>  	oi.sizep = sizep;
> -	if (sha1_object_info_extended(sha1, &oi, LOOKUP_REPLACE_OBJECT) < 0)
> +	if (sha1_object_info_extended(sha1, &oi, OBJECT_INFO_LOOKUP_REPLACE))
>  		return -1;
>  	return type;
>  }

This changes the error behaviour slightly, doesn't it?  Is it
guaranteed that sha1_object_info_extended() will never return
positive non-zero?  Right now it appears that is the case, so
this probably is a justifiable simplification of a caller, but
given the real consumer of the _extended() API in cat-file.c
treats only negative as an error, we should be consistent.  

I'd prefer to see this change _not_ made as part of this patch.
It may be OK to change this place and two callers in cat-file in a
follow-up patch though.

> @@ -3107,13 +3109,14 @@ static void *read_object(const unsigned char *sha1, enum object_type *type,
>  void *read_sha1_file_extended(const unsigned char *sha1,
>  			      enum object_type *type,
>  			      unsigned long *size,
> -			      unsigned flag)
> +			      int lookup_replace)
>  {
>  	void *data;
>  	const struct packed_git *p;
>  	const char *path;
>  	struct stat st;
> -	const unsigned char *repl = lookup_replace_object_extended(sha1, flag);
> +	const unsigned char *repl = lookup_replace ? lookup_replace_object(sha1)
> +						   : sha1;
>  
>  	errno = 0;
>  	data = read_object(repl, type, size);