Derrick Stolee <dsto...@microsoft.com> writes:
> When lazy-loading a tree for a commit, it will be important to select
> the tree from a specific struct commit_graph. Create a new method that
> specifies the commit-graph file and use that in
> get_commit_tree_in_graph().
Is this for the same reason why parse_commit_in_graph_one() was created
in ptch 03/20? Why it would be important?
>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dsto...@microsoft.com>
> ---
> commit-graph.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Simple and straightforward refactoring in the same vein as
parse_commit_in_graph_one() one.
>
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 78ba0edc80..25893ec096 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -358,14 +358,20 @@ static struct tree *load_tree_for_commit(struct
> commit_graph *g, struct commit *
> return c->maybe_tree;
> }
>
> -struct tree *get_commit_tree_in_graph(const struct commit *c)
> +static struct tree *get_commit_tree_in_graph_one(struct commit_graph *g,
> + const struct commit *c)
> {
> if (c->maybe_tree)
> return c->maybe_tree;
> if (c->graph_pos == COMMIT_NOT_FROM_GRAPH)
> - BUG("get_commit_tree_in_graph called from non-commit-graph
> commit");
> + BUG("get_commit_tree_in_graph_one called from non-commit-graph
> commit");
Sidenote: I wonder if it would be better or worse to use __func__ magic
costant variable here (part of C99 and C++11 standards).
> +
> + return load_tree_for_commit(g, (struct commit *)c);
> +}
>
> - return load_tree_for_commit(commit_graph, (struct commit *)c);
> +struct tree *get_commit_tree_in_graph(const struct commit *c)
> +{
> + return get_commit_tree_in_graph_one(commit_graph, c);
> }
>
> static void write_graph_chunk_fanout(struct hashfile *f,
Looks good to me.
