Diane Gasselin <diane.gasselin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +/*
> + * Store error messages in an array, each case
> + * corresponding to a error message type
> + */
> +typedef enum {
> + would_overwrite,
> + not_uptodate_file,
> + not_uptodate_dir,
> + would_lose_untracked,
> + would_lose_untracked_removed,
> + sparse_not_uptodate_file
> +} unpack_trees_error;
> +#define NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR 6
> +struct rejected_files *unpack_rejects[NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR];
You folks seem to like global variables a lot... Isn't there a struct
passed throughout the callchain in unpack_trees that you can attach this
information to?
Also "rejected_files" is not as technically correct (there are symlinks)
as "rejected_paths".
Style: we don't encourage "typedef enum { ... } unpack_trees_error";
instead we tend to just say "enum unpack_trees_error" both in the
definition and in the use.
> + if (!porcelain) {
> + error(msg,file,action);
> + return -1;
> + }
Style:
if (!porcelain)
return error(msg, file, action);
> +static void free_rejected_files(unpack_trees_error e)
> +{
> + while(unpack_rejects[e]->list) {
Style:
while (unpack_rejects[e]->list) {
> +static void display_error_msgs()
> +{
> + int i;
> + int hasPorcelain = 0;
Style: we don't encourage camelCase.
Whichever way spelled, "has porcelain?" is puzzling.
Is this about "are we issuing error messages as a Porcelain program, or
are we a plumbing without noisy error messages?" Or is this about "have
we said anything in the loop, and if so finish the message with
'Aborting'"? If the former, I would name it after "we are Porcelain";
if the latter, I would name it after "we said something".
> + for (i=0; i<NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR; i++) {
Style:
for (i = 0; i < NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR; i++) {
> + if (unpack_rejects[i] && unpack_rejects[i]->list) {
> + hasPorcelain = 1;
> + struct rejected_files_list *f = unpack_rejects[i]->list;
> + char *action = unpack_rejects[i]->action;
> + char *file = malloc(unpack_rejects[i]->size+1);
> + *file = '\0';
> + while (f) {
> + strcat(file,"\t");
> + strcat(file,f->file);
> + strcat(file,"\n");
> + f = f->next;
> + }
> + error(unpack_rejects[i]->msg,file,action);
> + free_rejected_files(i);
It feels wrong to malloc() inside the loop (and without freeing, which is
worse). At least the code should use strbuf to do something like:
struct strbuf indented = STRBUF_INIT;
for (f = unpack_rejects[i]->list; f; f = f->next)
strbuf_addf(&indented, "\t%s\n", f->file);
error(..., indented.buf, action);
strbuf_release(&indented);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html