Re: [PATCH 4/4] remote: use remote_is_configured() for add and rename

[Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>]

On 02/15, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:42:30PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
>
> > Both remote add and remote rename use a slightly different hand-rolled
> > check if the remote exits.  The hand-rolled check may have some subtle
> > cases in which it might fail to detect when a remote already exists.
> > One such case was fixed in fb86e32 ("git remote: allow adding remotes
> > agreeing with url.<...>.insteadOf").  Another case is when a remote is
> > configured as follows:
> >
> >   [remote "foo"]
> >     vcs = bar
> >
> > If we try to run `git remote add foo bar` with the above remote
> > configuration, git segfaults.  This change fixes it.
> >
> > In addition, git remote rename $existing foo with the configuration for
> > foo as above silently succeeds, even though foo already exists,
> > modifying its configuration.  With this patch it fails with "remote foo
> > already exists".
>
> Checking is_configured() certainly sounds like a better test, but...
>
> > diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c
> > index 981c487..bd57f1b 100644
> > --- a/builtin/remote.c
> > +++ b/builtin/remote.c
> > @@ -186,10 +186,7 @@ static int add(int argc, const char **argv)
> >  	url = argv[1];
> >
> >  	remote = remote_get(name);
> > -	if (remote && (remote->url_nr > 1 ||
> > -			(strcmp(name, remote->url[0]) &&
> > -				strcmp(url, remote->url[0])) ||
> > -			remote->fetch_refspec_nr))
> > +	if (remote_is_configured(remote))
> >  		die(_("remote %s already exists."), name);
>
> This original is quite confusing. I thought at first that there was
> perhaps something going on with allowing repeated re-configuration of
> the same remote, as long as some parameters matched. I.e., I am
> wondering if there is a case here that does _not_ segfault, that we
> would be breaking.
>
> But reading over fb86e32dcc, I think I have convinced myself that it was
> merely an ad-hoc check for "is_configured", and using that function is a
> better replacement.

It took me a while too to convince myself there is nothing strange
going on.  But I could neither find anything in the history, nor could
I think of any case that we could break.

Thanks for your review!

> -Peff