Hi,
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 23:34, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 21:31, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 07:54, László ÁSHIN <laszlo.ashin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> > +
>>> > + open SCRIPTIN, '|' . $authscript or die $!;
>>> > + print SCRIPTIN $user . "\n";
>>> > + print SCRIPTIN descramble($password) . "\n";
>>> > + close SCRIPTIN;
>>>
>>> Nit: Nice use of three-arg open, but you should use lexical
>>> filehandles instead. I.e.:
>>>
>>> open my $script, '|' . $authscript or die $!;
>>> ...
>>
>> This is two-argument open, not three-argument magic open. There is
>> string concatenation operator '.' there, not a comma ',' delimiting
>> arguments.
>
> Well spotted, I misread that.
>
>> It should be
>>
>> open my $script_fd, '|-', $authscript
>> or die "Couldn't open authentication script '$authscript': $!";
>>
It will be fixed, I will resend the patch.
>>> > + } else {
>>> > + if (not exists $cfg->{gitcvs}->{authdb}) {
>>
>> Why not elsif?
Because the else branch continues below. But good point, it can be
done that way too. Will be fixed.
>>
>>> > + print "E the repo config file needs a [gitcvs] section with an 'authdb' parameter set to the filename of the authentication database\n";
>>
>> Overly long line. Perhaps it would be better to split it into
>> concatenated parts.
>>
OK. Next patch will be fixed from this point of view as well.
>>
>>> > + my $auth_ok;
>>> > + open my $passwd, "<", $authdb or die $!;
>>
>> And here you use three-argument form of (ordinary) open.
>
> This and the code below were already part of the code. But the patch
> would be better if it didn't move so much code around so that this
> would be obvious.
>
I wanted to keep the old functionality (authdb), so I moved all of its
code to this else branch. That move meant I had to increase
indentation level. But as far as I see now I could have solved it
somehow else to keep the indentation level. I will fix this too.
>>> > + while (<$passwd>) {
>>> > + if (m{^\Q$user\E:(.*)}) {
>>> > + if (crypt($user, descramble($password)) eq $1) {
>>
>> Why nested if, and not short-circuit &&?
>>
>> + if (/^\Q$user\E:(.*)/ &&
>> + crypt($user, descramble($password)) eq $1) {
>>
Good point, but it is not my code.
So, I will resend this patch - the corrected one without the mistakes
I taken in the first version of it.
Should I make one patch for each of the code, doc, and test case, or
can they all go into one patch?
Regards,
László ÁSHIN
--
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