Re: [PATCH v5 02/11] ref-filter: make `color` use `ref_formatting_state`

[Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Matthieu Moy
<Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> --- a/ref-filter.c
>> +++ b/ref-filter.c
>> @@ -1195,6 +1197,11 @@ void ref_array_sort(struct ref_sorting *sorting, struct ref_array *array)
>>  static void ref_formatting(struct ref_formatting_state *state,
>>                          struct atom_value *v, struct strbuf *value)
>>  {
>> +     if (state->color) {
>> +             strbuf_addstr(value, state->color);
>> +             free(state->color);
>> +             state->color = NULL;
>> +     }
>>       strbuf_addf(value, "%s", v->s);
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -1266,6 +1273,13 @@ static void emit(const char *cp, const char *ep)
>>       }
>>  }
>>
>> +static void apply_pseudo_state(struct ref_formatting_state *state,
>> +                            struct atom_value *v)
>> +{
>> +     if (v->color)
>> +             state->color = (char *)v->s;
>> +}
>> +
>>  void show_ref_array_item(struct ref_array_item *info, const char *format, int quote_style)
>>  {
>>       const char *cp, *sp, *ep;
>
> It's not clear enough in the code and history that these these two
> functions are symmetrical.
>
> You can find better names. 'apply_pseudo_state' seems wrong it two ways:
> it does not _apply_ the state, but it stores it. And it's a "pseudo-atom
> related state", but not a "pseudo-state".
>
> How about
>
> ref_formatting -> apply_formatting_state
> apply_pseudo_state -> store_formatting_state
>
> ?

Yes, your suggested naming scheme is better. Ill adopt this.

>
> Actually, I would even call these functions right from
> show_ref_array_item, so that the result look like this:
>
>                 if (atomv->pseudo_atom)
>                         store_formatting_state(&state, atomv);
>                 else {
>                         apply_formatting_state(&state, atomv);
>                         reset_formatting_state(&state);
>                         print_value(&state, atomv);
>                 }

This would eliminate that extra strbuf in print_value() wouldn't it,
but this would also mean
that we replace the value in atomv to hold the new formatted value.
Sounds good to me.
Thanks :)

>
> In the history, if you are to introduce a dumb version of ref_formatting
> in PATCH 1, I think you should also introduce a dumb (actually, totally
> empty) version of apply_pseudo_state. Then, further patches would just
> add a few lines in each function, and ...
>
>> @@ -1281,7 +1295,10 @@ void show_ref_array_item(struct ref_array_item *info, const char *format, int qu
>>               if (cp < sp)
>>                       emit(cp, sp);
>>               get_ref_atom_value(info, parse_ref_filter_atom(sp + 2, ep), &atomv);
>> -             print_value(&state, atomv);
>> +             if (atomv->pseudo_atom)
>> +                     apply_pseudo_state(&state, atomv);
>> +             else
>> +                     print_value(&state, atomv);
>>       }
>
> ... this hunk would belong to PATCH 1.
>

I'll add a placeholder for this in the PATCH 1. Thanks :D

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak