read_ref_at(): special-case ref@{0} for an empty reflog

read_ref_at(): special-case ref@{0} for an empty reflog

The previous commit special-cased get_oid_basic()'s handling of ref@{n}
for a reflog with n entries. But its special case doesn't work for
ref@{0} in an empty reflog, because read_ref_at() dies when it notices
the empty reflog!

We can make this work by special-casing this in read_ref_at(). It's
somewhat gross, for two reasons:

  1. We have no reflog entry to describe in the "msg" out-parameter. So
     we have to leave it uninitialized or make something up.

  2. Likewise, we have no oid to put in the "oid" out-parameter. Leaving
     it untouched is actually the best thing here, as all of the callers
     will have initialized it with the current ref value via
     repo_dwim_log(). This is rather subtle, but it is how things worked
     in 6436a20284 (refs: allow @{n} to work with n-sized reflog,
     2021-01-07) before we reverted it.

The key difference from 6436a20284 here is that we'll return "1" to
indicate that we _didn't_ find the requested reflog entry. Coupled with
the special-casing in get_oid_basic() in the previous commit, that's
enough to make looking up ref@{0} work, and we can flip 6436a20284's
test back to expect_success.

It also means that the call in show-branch which segfaulted with
6436a20284 (and which is now tested in t3202) remains OK. The caller
notices that we could not find any reflog entry, and so it breaks out of
its loop, showing nothing. This is different from the current behavior
of producing an error, but it's just as reasonable (and is exactly what
we'd do if you asked it to walk starting at ref@{1} but there was only 1
entry).

Thus nobody should actually look at the reflog entry info we return. But
we'll still put in some fake values just to be on the safe side, since
this is such a subtle and confusing interface. Likewise, we'll document
what's going on in a comment above the function declaration. If this
were a function with a lot of callers, the footgun would probably not be
worth it. But it has only ever had two callers in its 18-year existence,
and it seems unlikely to grow more. So let's hold our noses and let
users enjoy the convenience of a simulated ref@{0}.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>