Re: [PATCH] lisp/ob-core.el: pass expanded body to org-confirm-babel-evaluate

[Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>]

Tom Gillespie writes:

> Hi Kyle,
>     Following up in this thread having investigated the impact of coderefs.
> My conclusion is that coderefs need to be stripped out before they are
> passed to org-confirm-babel-evaluate. They are not present in the
> executed code and removing them is not something that a definition
> of org-confirm-babel-evaluate should have to know anything about.
> Right now I work around them by suggesting that users comment
> out their coderefs. This works because my use case is restricted to
> elisp code and I strip the comments using read, but other languages
> would not have such an easy solution.

Thanks for revisiting this.  This change (df5a83637) hasn't made it into
a release yet, so it'd be good to make this move now.

> I have included a patch against maint that reuses the let block
> from org-babel-execute-src-block to accomplish this.

> diff --git a/lisp/ob-core.el b/lisp/ob-core.el
> index cd876da0f..44b02feb9 100644
> --- a/lisp/ob-core.el
> +++ b/lisp/ob-core.el
> @@ -240,9 +240,14 @@ should be asked whether to allow evaluation."
>  			(funcall org-confirm-babel-evaluate
>  				 ;; Language, code block body.
>  				 (nth 0 info)
> -				 (if (org-babel-noweb-p headers :eval)
> -				     (org-babel-expand-noweb-references info)
> -				   (nth 1 info)))
> +				 (let ((coderef (nth 6 info))
> +				       (expand
> +					(if (org-babel-noweb-p params :eval)

params is undefined here.  I've s/params/headers/ when applying.

> +					    (org-babel-expand-noweb-references info)
> +					  (nth 1 info))))
> +				   (if (not coderef) expand
> +				     (replace-regexp-in-string
> +				      (org-src-coderef-regexp coderef) "" expand nil nil 1))))
>  		      org-confirm-babel-evaluate))))
>      (cond
>       (noeval nil)

Okay, so this is equivalent to your original patch, though your initial
approach avoided duplicating the logic, which I think is worth doing.
I'd like to make sure this gets in before a release, so I've applied
this message's patch (3e1c0b0f4) and then followed it up with a patch
that adds a test, and another that extracts the duplicated logic out to
a helper (as in your original patch).