Re: [PATCH 2/5] *: relax git_configset_get_value_multi result

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 02:08:28PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>

Should the patch message be:

  *: relax git_config_get_value_multi() result

instead of referring to git_configset_get_value_multi?

> ---
>  builtin/submodule--helper.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  submodule.c                 |  2 +-
>  t/helper/test-config.c      |  4 ++--
>  versioncmp.c                |  8 ++++----
>  4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

All looks good here. I did a git grep for git_config_get_value_multi()
to make sure all of those spots were covered here. No comments from me,
other than a little thinking aloud below on a couple of the conversions.

> @@ -552,7 +553,9 @@ static int module_init(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  	 * If there are no path args and submodule.active is set then,
>  	 * by default, only initialize 'active' modules.
>  	 */
> -	if (!argc && git_config_get_value_multi("submodule.active"))
> +	if (!argc &&
> +	    (active_modules = git_config_get_value_multi("submodule.active")) &&
> +	    active_modules->nr)

Yuck ;-). I was going to suggest that the addition of a helper function
something like:

    static int any_configured(const char *key)
    {
      const struct string_list *vals = git_configset_get_value_multi(key);
      return vals && vals->nr;
    }

would be worthwhile for this and the below conversion, but the change at
the end of this series makes it a moot point. So the temporary eye-sore
is just fine.

> diff --git a/t/helper/test-config.c b/t/helper/test-config.c
> index 4ba9eb65606..62644dd71d7 100644
> --- a/t/helper/test-config.c
> +++ b/t/helper/test-config.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ int cmd__config(int argc, const char **argv)
>  		}
>  	} else if (argc == 3 && !strcmp(argv[1], "get_value_multi")) {
>  		strptr = git_config_get_value_multi(argv[2]);
> -		if (strptr) {
> +		if (strptr && strptr->nr) {
>  			for (i = 0; i < strptr->nr; i++) {
>  				v = strptr->items[i].string;
>  				if (!v)

Good catch. I was thinking that this whole "if" statement could have
been dropped, but the goto that is hidden by the context meant that this
*would* have been a behavior change otherwise. So the conversion here is
appropriate.

Thanks,
Taylor