Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
> submodule_from_ce returns always NULL, when such flag is not given.
> From 10/18:
>
> +const struct submodule *submodule_from_ce(const struct cache_entry *ce)
> +{
> + if (!S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (!should_update_submodules())
> + return NULL;
> +
> + return submodule_from_path(null_sha1, ce->name);
> +}
>
> should_update_submodules is always false if such a flag is not set,
> such that we end up in the else case which is literally the same as
> the removed lines (they are just indented).
I see.
I didn't think a function this deep in the callchain that does not
take any parameter could possibly change the behaviour based on the
end-user input. I was expecting that such a state (i.e. are we
recursive? are we allowed to forcibly update the working tree
files?) would be kept part of something like "struct checkout" and
passed around the callchain.
That was why I didn't look at how that function answers "should
update?" question, and got puzzled. Because it would imply there is
some hidden state that is accessible by everybody--a global variable
or something--which would point at a deeper design issue.
