[Outreachy PATCH] merge-blobs: stop using the_repository

[Outreachy PATCH] merge-blobs: stop using the_repository

[Okhuomon Ajayi]

merge_blobs() already has the repository through istate.
Pass it to fill_mmfile_blob() and use it when reading objects.

Remove the USE_THE_REPOSITORY_VARIABLE definition and
include the headers needed for the structure definitions.

Signed-off-by: Okhuomon Ajayi <okhuomonajayi54@gmail.com>
---
 merge-blobs.c | 17 +++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/merge-blobs.c b/merge-blobs.c
index 49dbec9529..1b0621c814 100644
--- a/merge-blobs.c
+++ b/merge-blobs.c
@@ -1,18 +1,19 @@
-#define USE_THE_REPOSITORY_VARIABLE
-
 #include "git-compat-util.h"
 #include "merge-ll.h"
 #include "blob.h"
 #include "merge-blobs.h"
 #include "odb.h"
+#include "read-cache-ll.h"
+#include "repository.h"
 
-static int fill_mmfile_blob(mmfile_t *f, struct blob *obj)
+static int fill_mmfile_blob(struct repository *r, mmfile_t *f,
+			    struct blob *obj)
 {
 	void *buf;
 	size_t size;
 	enum object_type type;
 
-	buf = odb_read_object(the_repository->objects, &obj->object.oid,
+	buf = odb_read_object(r->objects, &obj->object.oid,
 			      &type, &size);
 	if (!buf)
 		return -1;
@@ -79,17 +80,17 @@ void *merge_blobs(struct index_state *istate, const char *path,
 			return NULL;
 		if (!our)
 			our = their;
-		return odb_read_object(the_repository->objects, &our->object.oid,
+		return odb_read_object(istate->repo->objects, &our->object.oid,
 				       &type, size);
 	}
 
-	if (fill_mmfile_blob(&f1, our) < 0)
+	if (fill_mmfile_blob(istate->repo, &f1, our) < 0)
 		goto out_no_mmfile;
-	if (fill_mmfile_blob(&f2, their) < 0)
+	if (fill_mmfile_blob(istate->repo, &f2, their) < 0)
 		goto out_free_f1;
 
 	if (base) {
-		if (fill_mmfile_blob(&common, base) < 0)
+		if (fill_mmfile_blob(istate->repo, &common, base) < 0)
 			goto out_free_f2_f1;
 	} else {
 		common.ptr = xstrdup("");
-- 
2.54.0

Re: [Outreachy PATCH] merge-blobs: stop using the_repository

[Usman Akinyemi]

>
> merge_blobs() already has the repository through istate.
> Pass it to fill_mmfile_blob() and use it when reading objects.
>
> Remove the USE_THE_REPOSITORY_VARIABLE definition and
> include the headers needed for the structure definitions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Okhuomon Ajayi <okhuomonajayi54@gmail.com>
> ---
Good.
>  merge-blobs.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/merge-blobs.c b/merge-blobs.c
> index 49dbec9529..1b0621c814 100644
> --- a/merge-blobs.c
> +++ b/merge-blobs.c
> @@ -1,18 +1,19 @@
> -#define USE_THE_REPOSITORY_VARIABLE
> -
>  #include "git-compat-util.h"
>  #include "merge-ll.h"
>  #include "blob.h"
>  #include "merge-blobs.h"
>  #include "odb.h"
> +#include "read-cache-ll.h"
> +#include "repository.h"
>
> -static int fill_mmfile_blob(mmfile_t *f, struct blob *obj)
> +static int fill_mmfile_blob(struct repository *r, mmfile_t *f,
> +                           struct blob *obj)

Is there a reason why the repo variable is named "r" instead of repo ?

"repo" seems more "descriptive" than "r". if there is no reason, let's change
it to "repo" from "r"

>  {
>         void *buf;
>         size_t size;
>         enum object_type type;
>
> -       buf = odb_read_object(the_repository->objects, &obj->object.oid,
> +       buf = odb_read_object(r->objects, &obj->object.oid,
>                               &type, &size);
this r->objects will become repo->objects
>         if (!buf)
>                 return -1;
> @@ -79,17 +80,17 @@ void *merge_blobs(struct index_state *istate, const char *path,
>                         return NULL;
>                 if (!our)
>                         our = their;
> -               return odb_read_object(the_repository->objects, &our->object.oid,
> +               return odb_read_object(istate->repo->objects, &our->object.oid,
>                                        &type, size);
>         }
>
> -       if (fill_mmfile_blob(&f1, our) < 0)
> +       if (fill_mmfile_blob(istate->repo, &f1, our) < 0)
>                 goto out_no_mmfile;
> -       if (fill_mmfile_blob(&f2, their) < 0)
> +       if (fill_mmfile_blob(istate->repo, &f2, their) < 0)
>                 goto out_free_f1;
>
>         if (base) {
> -               if (fill_mmfile_blob(&common, base) < 0)
> +               if (fill_mmfile_blob(istate->repo, &common, base) < 0)
>                         goto out_free_f2_f1;
>         } else {
>                 common.ptr = xstrdup("");
> --
apart from the nit about r vs repo this looks good.
> 2.54.0
>
Thanks.

Re: [Outreachy PATCH] merge-blobs: stop using the_repository

[Okhuomon Ajayi]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 5:53 PM Usman Akinyemi
<usmanakinyemi202@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a reason why the repo variable is named "r" instead of repo ?
>
> "repo" seems more "descriptive" than "r". if there is no reason, let's change
> it to "repo" from "r"
Thanks for the review.
There is no particular reason. I studied some files and saw it written
as "r", but I will change it to "repo" in v2 so it is more
descriptive, as you said.
Okhuomon

Re: [Outreachy PATCH] merge-blobs: stop using the_repository

[Junio C Hamano]

Usman Akinyemi <usmanakinyemi202@gmail.com> writes:

>> +static int fill_mmfile_blob(struct repository *r, mmfile_t *f,
>> +                           struct blob *obj)
>
> Is there a reason why the repo variable is named "r" instead of repo ?
>
> "repo" seems more "descriptive" than "r". if there is no reason, let's change
> it to "repo" from "r"

Is that really needed?

I thought that we already use short-and-sweet "r" elsewhere, and it
is expected we will have many more functions that take "struct
repository *" as the first parameter as the libification stuff goes
further, so if we consistently say "r", that would be just familiar
and descriptive as "repository" to our developers, without risking
to make readers wonder what "repo" stands for, things other than
"repository", like "reposses" ;-).

Re: [Outreachy PATCH] merge-blobs: stop using the_repository

[Usman Akinyemi]

>
> Is that really needed?
>
> I thought that we already use short-and-sweet "r" elsewhere, and it
> is expected we will have many more functions that take "struct
> repository *" as the first parameter as the libification stuff goes
> further, so if we consistently say "r", that would be just familiar
> and descriptive as "repository" to our developers, without risking
> to make readers wonder what "repo" stands for, things other than
> "repository", like "reposses" ;-).

We also have "repo" used in some places, we might want to pick one, but
I do not think it is a big issue.

Since, there instances of "r"  Okhuomon does not have to send a new patch
for changing the variable name then.

Thanks.