On 2025-05-22 at 20:51:20, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > +static int check_stash_topology(struct repository *r, struct commit *stash)
> > +{
> > + struct commit *p1, *p2, *p3 = NULL;
> > +
> > + /* stash must have two or three parents */
> > + if (!stash->parents || !stash->parents->next ||
> > + (stash->parents->next->next && stash->parents->next->next->next))
> > + return -1;
> > + p1 = stash->parents->item;
> > + p2 = stash->parents->next->item;
> > + if (stash->parents->next->next)
> > + p3 = stash->parents->next->next->item;
> > + if (repo_parse_commit(r, p1) || repo_parse_commit(r, p2) ||
> > + (p3 && repo_parse_commit(r, p3)))
> > + return -1;
> > + /* p2 must have a single parent, p3 must have no parents */
> > + if (!p2->parents || p2->parents->next || (p3 && p3->parents))
> > + return -1;
> > + if (repo_parse_commit(r, p2->parents->item))
> > + return -1;
> > + /* p2^1 must equal p1 */
> > + if (!oideq(&p1->object.oid, &p2->parents->item->object.oid))
> > + return -1;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> This is much more elaborate than the existing "does this commit look
> like a stash entry" test done elsewhere, isn't it? Very nicely done.
This is Phillip Wood's code, but yes, it is very nice. I looked at the
patch he provided and it seemed very sensible, so I adopted it.
> Hmph. As we work with the commit objects in the above part already,
> would it still make sense to use an oid array? That would force us
> to look up the same set of commits using the object names again in
> the later loop. I would have thought we might use commit_list or
> something to accumulate commits, and then consume in the loop below.
I can do that in v7.
--
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
