[GSoC][PATCH 0/1] sequencer: print an error message if append_todo_help() fails

[GSoC][PATCH 0/1] sequencer: print an error message if append_todo_help() fails

[Alban Gruin]

Currently, append_todo_help() does not warn the user if an error occurs
when trying to write to the todo file.  This patch addresses this
problem.

This patch is based on ag/rebase-i-append-todo-help.

Alban Gruin (1):
  sequencer: print an error message if append_todo_help() fails

 sequencer.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

-- 
2.18.0

[GSoC][PATCH 1/1] sequencer: print an error message if append_todo_help() fails

[Alban Gruin]

This adds an error when append_todo_help() fails to write its message to
the todo file.

Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com>
---
 sequencer.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index 7cc76332e..7c4bdbb99 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -4380,6 +4380,9 @@ int append_todo_help(unsigned edit_todo, unsigned keep_empty)
 	}
 
 	ret = fputs(buf.buf, todo);
+	if (ret)
+		error_errno(_("Could not append help text to '%s'"), rebase_path_todo());
+
 	fclose(todo);
 	strbuf_release(&buf);
 
-- 
2.18.0

Re: [GSoC][PATCH 1/1] sequencer: print an error message if append_todo_help() fails

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Alban,

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Alban Gruin wrote:

> This adds an error when append_todo_help() fails to write its message to
> the todo file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com>

ACK.

We *may* want to fold that into the commit that adds `append_todo_help()`.
And, as I mentioned previously, I would love for that function to be used
as an excuse to introduce the long-overdue `interactive-rebase.c`
(`sequencer.c` is supposed to be the backend for cherry-pick and revert
and interactive rebase, but not a catch-all for *all* of those things, it
is already way too long to be readable, and I take blame for a large part
of that.)

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [GSoC][PATCH 1/1] sequencer: print an error message if append_todo_help() fails

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi Alban,
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Alban Gruin wrote:
>
>> This adds an error when append_todo_help() fails to write its message to
>> the todo file.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com>
>
> ACK.
>
> We *may* want to fold that into the commit that adds `append_todo_help()`.

Absolutely.  This looks more like an "oops, I made a mess and here
is a fix on top", and even worse, it does not make an effort to help
readers where the mess was made (iow, which commit it goes on to
of); it is better to be squashed in.

I do not know offhand who Alban's mentors are, but one thing I think
is a good thing for them to teach is how to better organize the
changes with readers in mind.  The author of a patch series knows
his or her patches and how they relate to each other a lot better
than the readers of patches, who are reading not just his or her
patches but the ones from a lot wider set of contributors.  Even
though append-todo-help and edit-todo may have been developed as
separate steps in author's mind, it is criminal to send them as if
they are completely separate topics that can independently applied,
especially when one depends on the other.  It is a lot more helpful
to the readers if they were sent as a larger single series, because
doing so _will_ tell the readers which order the dependency goes.

> And, as I mentioned previously, I would love for that function to be used
> as an excuse to introduce the long-overdue `interactive-rebase.c`

I am not sure if I like this direction.  

As newbies are often very bad at coming up with APIs and naming
global functions, keeping everything as "static" inside a single
sequencer.c tends to avoid contaminating the global namespace.

Re: [GSoC][PATCH 1/1] sequencer: print an error message if append_todo_help() fails

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Alban Gruin wrote:
> >
> >> This adds an error when append_todo_help() fails to write its message to
> >> the todo file.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com>
> >
> > ACK.
> >
> > We *may* want to fold that into the commit that adds `append_todo_help()`.
> 
> Absolutely.  This looks more like an "oops, I made a mess and here
> is a fix on top", and even worse, it does not make an effort to help
> readers where the mess was made (iow, which commit it goes on to
> of); it is better to be squashed in.
> 
> I do not know offhand who Alban's mentors are, but one thing I think
> is a good thing for them to teach is how to better organize the
> changes with readers in mind.  The author of a patch series knows
> his or her patches and how they relate to each other a lot better
> than the readers of patches, who are reading not just his or her
> patches but the ones from a lot wider set of contributors.  Even
> though append-todo-help and edit-todo may have been developed as
> separate steps in author's mind, it is criminal to send them as if
> they are completely separate topics that can independently applied,
> especially when one depends on the other.  It is a lot more helpful
> to the readers if they were sent as a larger single series, because
> doing so _will_ tell the readers which order the dependency goes.

Chris & Stefan are Alban's mentors, and I spend quite a bit of my time on
IRC, ready to help Alban when he has questions. Chris & Stephan mainly act
as first-line reviewers.

> > And, as I mentioned previously, I would love for that function to be
> > used as an excuse to introduce the long-overdue `interactive-rebase.c`
> 
> I am not sure if I like this direction.

Blame me, not Alban. I am pretty familiar with sequencer.c, and I know
that it is way too large.

> As newbies are often very bad at coming up with APIs and naming global
> functions, keeping everything as "static" inside a single sequencer.c
> tends to avoid contaminating the global namespace.

Then I just need to make sure to suggest good names that are safe for the
global namespace, don't I?

Seeing as sequencer.c is so long already, it is own little mega namespace
anyway, so we already have to be very careful *within* sequencer.c.

Ciao,
Dscho