Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Allow aliases that include other aliases
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:02:58 +0200
- From: Tim Schumacher <timschumi@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Allow aliases that include other aliases
On 05.09.18 19:34, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 10:54:27AM +0200, Tim Schumacher wrote:
Aliases can only contain non-alias git commands and their
arguments, not other user-defined aliases. Resolving further
(nested) aliases is prevented by breaking the loop after the
first alias was processed. Git then fails with a command-not-found
Allow resolving nested aliases by not breaking the loop in
run_argv() after the first alias was processed. Instead, continue
incrementing `done_alias` until `handle_alias()` fails, which means that
there are no further aliases that can be processed. Prevent looping
aliases by storing substituted commands in `cmd_list` and checking if
a command has been substituted previously.
This is what I've come up with to prevent looping aliases. I'm not too
happy with the number of indentations needed, but this seemed to be the
easiest way to search an array for a value.
I think this approach is OK, though I wonder if we'd also be fine with
if (done_alias++ > 100)
die("woah, is your alias looping?");
The point is just to prevent a runaway infinite loop, and this does that
while keeping the cost very low for the common case (not that one string
insertion is probably breaking the bank).
I'd opt to use the list-approach instead of aborting when the
counter reaches 100 (or any other value), because it aborts
at the earliest known looping point. I didn't run any tests
comparing both solutions, but I assume the list would perform
faster than the hard-limit, even if it requires slightly more
memory and lines of code.
I hope that I can put the string-list struct to some use,
so that the solution using lists becomes an equally good
It could also extend to ! aliases if we wanted (i.e., my '!git foo'
example from earlier), but you'd have to carry the counter through the
environment between processes.
That is a question about "shooting oneself in the foot" again,
but I think trying to prevent that would require more changes
than I can make, and it is definitely out-of-scope for this
Thanks for reviewing,