Re: [PATCH] http-backend: remove a duplicated code branch

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:25:46PM +0200, Robin Dupret wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Robin Dupret <robin.dupret@hey.com>

You signed-off, which is good (and necessary for contributing a patch).
This is a good place to say "why". Even if it is "because it makes the
code more readable", it is good to say that rather than leave readers
guessing (though of course people won't necessarily agree ;) ).

> ---
>  http-backend.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/http-backend.c b/http-backend.c
> index e7c0eeab23..3d6e2ff17f 100644
> --- a/http-backend.c
> +++ b/http-backend.c
> @@ -466,9 +466,7 @@ static void run_service(const char **argv, int buffer_input)
>  	struct child_process cld = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>  	ssize_t req_len = get_content_length();
>  
> -	if (encoding && !strcmp(encoding, "gzip"))
> -		gzipped_request = 1;
> -	else if (encoding && !strcmp(encoding, "x-gzip"))
> +	if (encoding && (!strcmp(encoding, "gzip") || !strcmp(encoding, "x-gzip")))
>  		gzipped_request = 1;

I think this conversion is correct, and I do find the resulting slightly
easier to read. I wondered if the two conditions might have come
separately, but no, they were both there in the initial 556cfa3b6d
(Smart fetch and push over HTTP: server side, 2009-10-30).

We do frown a bit on making small style changes like this. This kind of
churn isn't dramatically improving the quality of the code, and it
carries the risk of regression (if there is something subtle that you or
the reviewers missed) and creates a maintenance burden (it may conflict
with other patches, though I doubt it in this case, and it creates work
for reviewers and the maintainer to apply).

So...I dunno. I don't mind it, but it is not a pattern we like to
encourage in general. Let's see what Junio thinks.

-Peff