Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] trace.c: be smart about what env to print in trace_run_command()
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:45:46 -0500
- From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] trace.c: be smart about what env to print in trace_run_command()
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:24:28AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> + /*
> >> + * Do we have a sequence of "unset GIT_DIR; GIT_DIR=foo"?
> >> + * Then don't bother with the unset thing.
> >> + */
> >> + if (i + 1 < envs.nr &&
> >> + !strcmp(env, envs.items[i + 1].string))
> >> continue;
> > Are we guaranteed that "FOO" and "FOO=bar" appear next to each other in the
> > sorted list? I think "FOO123=bar" could come between.
> At this point, envs is a string list whose key is FOO for both "FOO"
> (unset) and "FOO=bar" (set); "FOO123=bar" would sort after these two.
Ah, right, I didn't notice that we took just the key name.
> But I did not see anything that attempts to guarantee that "FOO"
> sorts before "FOO=bar" with string_list_sort(). If the sort used in
> the function is stable, and if the case we care about is unset
> followed by set, then the above would catch the case, but even if
> that were the case, it is unclear what we want to do when a set of
> FOO is followed by an unset of FOO.
The actual prep_childenv() code looks like it would always do
last-one-wins, so we should treat FOO as unset in that final case. But
that only kicks in on non-Windows.
On Windows we feed cmd->env straight to mingw_spawnvpe(). That ends up
in make_environment_block(), which looks like it does something similar.
It's too bad the prep code is not shared, since then we could probably
just ask _it_ which deltas it applied. I suspect it would be possible to
share it, since mingw_spawnvpe is our own compat thing (so we could
change its interface to take the whole prepared environment block). But
I won't blame Duy if he doesn't want to refactor all of the
cross-platform exec code. ;)
> And if the sort is not stable, then the above code is just simply
> > I also think this is a special case of a more general problem. FOO could
> > appear any number of times in the "env" array, as a deletion or with
> > multiple values. Our prep_childenv() would treat that as "last one
> > wins", I think. Could we just do the same here?
> Yeah, if the last one is to set FOO=bar, then it feels sufficient to
> just check if FOO is set to bar in the original and deciding to show
> or hide; similarly if the last one is to unset FOO, it does not matter
> if the caller sets it to some other value before unsetting, so it
> feels sufficient to just check if FOO is set to anything in the
> original environment.
Yep, agreed again.