From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Miriam Rubio <mirucam@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>,
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>,
Tanushree Tumane <tanushreetumane@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] bisect: libify `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad` and its dependents
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:46:19 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2001301341100.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200128144026.53128-10-mirucam@gmail.com>
Hi Miriam,
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Miriam Rubio wrote:
> @@ -893,18 +901,20 @@ static void check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(struct repository *r,
> if (check_ancestors(r, rev_nr, rev, prefix))
> res = check_merge_bases(rev_nr, rev, no_checkout);
> free(rev);
> - if (res)
> - exit(res == -11 ? 0 : -res);
>
> - /* Create file BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK. */
> - fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600);
> - if (fd < 0)
> - warning_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"),
> - filename);
> - else
> - close(fd);
> + if (!res)
> + {
Please move the opening `{` to the same line as the `if (!res)`.
> + /* Create file BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK. */
> + fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600);
> + if (fd < 0)
> + warning_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"),
> + filename);
> + else
> + close(fd);
> + }
I wonder whether this would be easier to read:
if (res == -11)
res = 0;
else if (res)
; /* error out */
else if ((fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600)) < 0)
res = warning_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"), filename);
else
close(fd);
Note: my code explicitly assigns `res = -1` if the file could not be
created, which is technically a change in behavior, but I think it is
actually a bug fix.
> done:
> free(filename);
> + return res;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -975,7 +985,9 @@ int bisect_next_all(struct repository *r, const char *prefix, int no_checkout)
> if (read_bisect_refs())
> die(_("reading bisect refs failed"));
I see that there is still a `die()` here, and you left it alone in this
patch because at this point, only the callers of
`check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad()` need to be addressed. Good.
At a later point, this will have to be dealt with, of course.
Another thing will need to be handled, too: while I was looking at the
code whether any resources need to be released (returning a negative
integer does not release memory or close file handles, unlike `die()`), I
stumbled across the fact that `term_bad` and `term_good` are file-local
variables. They will need to be made attributes of a `struct` and will
need to be released properly, i.e. the ownership will have to be clarified
(is a failed `bisect_next_all()` responsible for releasing the memory it
allocated via `read_bisect_terms()`, or its caller?).
Just something to keep in mind. Or better: to jot down in a TODO list.
>
> - check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(r, prefix, no_checkout);
> + res = check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(r, prefix, no_checkout);
> + if (res)
> + return res;
>
> bisect_rev_setup(r, &revs, prefix, "%s", "^%s", 1);
> revs.limited = 1;
> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> index 826fcba2ed..3442bfe2cb 100644
> --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> @@ -666,7 +666,8 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>
> switch (cmdmode) {
> case NEXT_ALL:
> - return bisect_next_all(the_repository, prefix, no_checkout);
> + res = bisect_next_all(the_repository, prefix, no_checkout);
> + break;
> case WRITE_TERMS:
> if (argc != 2)
> return error(_("--write-terms requires two arguments"));
> @@ -713,5 +714,12 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> return error("BUG: unknown subcommand '%d'", cmdmode);
> }
> free_terms(&terms);
> - return !!res;
> + /*
> + * Handle early success
> + * From check_merge_bases > check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad > bisect_next_all
> + */
> + if (res == -11)
> + res = 0;
Hmm. Is this the correct place, though? Should `bisect_next_all()` not be
the function that already turns `-11` into `0`? In other words, _which_
code are we supposed to skip over when `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad()`
returns `-11`? In other words, where would the `catch` of the
`try`/`catch` be, if we had portable exceptions in C?
> +
> + return res < 0 ? -res : res;
This is a change in behavior, though: previously we guaranteed that the
exit code is either 0 on success or 1 upon failure. I am not quite sure
that we want to change that behavior.
Ciao,
Dscho
> }
> --
> 2.21.1 (Apple Git-122.3)
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-30 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-28 14:40 [Outreachy][PATCH v2 00/11] Finish converting git bisect to C part 1 Miriam Rubio
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] bisect--helper: convert `vocab_*` char pointers to char arrays Miriam Rubio
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] bisect--helper: change `retval` to `res` Miriam Rubio
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] bisect: use the standard 'if (!var)' way to check for 0 Miriam Rubio
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] run-command: make `exists_in_PATH()` non-static Miriam Rubio
2020-01-30 12:36 ` Johannes Schindelin
[not found] ` <CAN7CjDCiG6KZU+yHGxQ26TESb1yfvc7aWh0EKhE=owSV7D-C0Q@mail.gmail.com>
2020-01-30 14:41 ` Fwd: " Miriam R.
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] bisect--helper: introduce new `decide_next()` function Miriam Rubio
2020-01-30 12:31 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-01-30 14:05 ` Miriam R.
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] bisect: libify `exit_if_skipped_commits` to `error_if_skipped*` and its dependents Miriam Rubio
2020-01-31 18:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] bisect: libify `bisect_checkout` Miriam Rubio
2020-01-31 18:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] bisect: libify `check_merge_bases` and its dependents Miriam Rubio
2020-01-31 18:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] bisect: libify `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad` " Miriam Rubio
2020-01-30 13:46 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2020-01-30 14:40 ` Miriam R.
2020-01-30 15:01 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-01-30 15:26 ` Miriam R.
2020-01-30 21:59 ` Christian Couder
2020-01-31 9:07 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-01-31 9:15 ` Christian Couder
[not found] ` <CAN7CjDC7ijMDtJdShRB+P0d0GRYYrQXktdH2Og9XGDqJ-OZxzw@mail.gmail.com>
2020-01-31 10:21 ` Fwd: " Miriam R.
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] bisect: libify `handle_bad_merge_base` " Miriam Rubio
2020-01-28 14:40 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] bisect: libify `bisect_next_all` Miriam Rubio
2020-01-30 15:04 ` [Outreachy][PATCH v2 00/11] Finish converting git bisect to C part 1 Johannes Schindelin
2020-01-30 15:18 ` Miriam R.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2001301341100.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mirucam@gmail.com \
--cc=pranit.bauva@gmail.com \
--cc=tanushreetumane@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).