On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
> diff --git a/promisor-remote.c b/promisor-remote.c
> index 5801ebfd9b..0fb07f25af 100644
> --- a/promisor-remote.c
> +++ b/promisor-remote.c
> @@ -314,10 +314,38 @@ static int allow_unsanitized(char ch)
> return ch > 32 && ch < 127;
> }
>
> -static void promisor_info_vecs(struct repository *repo,
> - struct strvec *names,
> - struct strvec *urls)
> +/*
> + * Linked list for promisor remotes.
> + *
> + * 'fields' should not be sorted, as we will rely on the order we put
> + * things into it. So, for example, 'string_list_append()' should be
> + * used instead of 'string_list_insert()'.
> + */
> +struct promisor_info {
> + struct promisor_info *next;
> + struct string_list fields;
> +};
> +
> +static void free_info_list(struct promisor_info *p)
Nit: nowadays we would call this something like
`promisor_info_list_free()`, with the name of the subsystem coming
first.
> char *promisor_remote_info(struct repository *repo)
> {
> struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
> int advertise_promisors = 0;
> - struct strvec names = STRVEC_INIT;
> - struct strvec urls = STRVEC_INIT;
> + struct promisor_info *info_list;
> + struct promisor_info *r, *p;
>
> git_config_get_bool("promisor.advertise", &advertise_promisors);
>
> if (!advertise_promisors)
> return NULL;
>
> - promisor_info_vecs(repo, &names, &urls);
> + info_list = promisor_info_list(repo);
>
> - if (!names.nr)
> + if (!info_list)
> return NULL;
>
> - for (size_t i = 0; i < names.nr; i++) {
> - if (i)
> + for (p = NULL, r = info_list; r; p = r, r = r->next) {
> + struct string_list_item *item;
> + int first = 1;
> +
> + if (r != info_list)
> strbuf_addch(&sb, ';');
> - strbuf_addstr(&sb, "name=");
> - strbuf_addstr_urlencode(&sb, names.v[i], allow_unsanitized);
> - strbuf_addstr(&sb, ",url=");
> - strbuf_addstr_urlencode(&sb, urls.v[i], allow_unsanitized);
> +
> + for_each_string_list_item(item, &r->fields) {
> + if (first)
> + first = 0;
> + else
> + strbuf_addch(&sb, ',');
> + strbuf_addf(&sb, "%s=", item->string);
> + strbuf_addstr_urlencode(&sb, (char *)item->util, allow_unsanitized);
> + }
> }
>
> - strvec_clear(&names);
> - strvec_clear(&urls);
> + free_info_list(p);
I don't quite follow the usage pattern of `info_list` here. My
expectation is that we'd:
1. Acquire the promisor info list.
2. Iterate through each of its items.
3. Free the complete list.
But why do we free `p` here? Shouldn't we free `info_list`? And if we
did so, can't we drop `p` completely and just iterate through the list
via `r`?
> return strbuf_detach(&sb, NULL);
> }
>
> /*
> - * Find first index of 'nicks' where there is 'nick'. 'nick' is
> - * compared case sensitively to the strings in 'nicks'. If not found
> - * 'nicks->nr' is returned.
> + * Find first element of 'p' where the 'name' field is 'nick'. 'nick'
> + * is compared case sensitively to the strings in 'p'. If not found
> + * NULL is returned.
> */
> -static size_t remote_nick_find(struct strvec *nicks, const char *nick)
> +static struct promisor_info *remote_nick_find(struct promisor_info *p, const char *nick)
> {
> - for (size_t i = 0; i < nicks->nr; i++)
> - if (!strcmp(nicks->v[i], nick))
> - return i;
> - return nicks->nr;
> + for (; p; p = p->next) {
> + assert(!strcmp(p->fields.items[0].string, "name"));
Why do we add this assert now? And if we want to keep it, shouldn't it
rather be `BUG()`?
> @@ -414,11 +461,16 @@ static int should_accept_remote(enum accept_promisor accept,
> return 0;
> }
>
> - if (!strcmp(urls->v[i], remote_url))
> + if (strcmp(p->fields.items[1].string, "url"))
> + BUG("Bad info_list for remote '%s'", remote_name);
It feels somewhat fragile to assume hardcoded locations of each of the
keys in `fields.items`. Would it be preferable to instead have a
function that looks up the index by key?
Patrick
