On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Introduce contents_atom_parser() which will parse the '%(contents)'
> atom and store information into the 'used_atom' structure based on the
> modifiers used along with the atom. Also introduce body_atom_parser()
> and subject_atom_parser() for parsing atoms '%(body)' and '%(subject)'
> respectively.
These latter two parsers are conceptually distinct from introduction
of the %(contents) parser, thus could be done in a follow-on patch or
two (though I don't care strongly enough to insist upon it).
> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <Karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
> @@ -66,6 +70,38 @@ static void remote_ref_atom_parser(struct used_atom *atom, const char *arg)
> +static void body_atom_parser(struct used_atom *atom, const char *arg)
> +{
> + if (arg)
> + die("%%(body) atom does not take arguments");
None of the other error messages bothers saying "atom" literally
following a %(foo). For consistency, this likely should say merely:
%(body) does not take arguments
> + atom->u.contents.option = C_BODY_DEP;
> +}
> +
> +static void subject_atom_parser(struct used_atom *atom, const char *arg)
> +{
> + if (arg)
> + die("%%(subject) atom does not take arguments");
Ditto.
> + atom->u.contents.option = C_SUB;
> +}
> @@ -733,19 +763,15 @@ static void grab_sub_body_contents(struct atom_value *val, int deref, struct obj
>
> for (i = 0; i < used_atom_cnt; i++) {
> const char *name = used_atom[i].name;
> + struct used_atom *atom = &used_atom[i];
Not a big deal, but if you re-order these two lines, then the second,
which extracts name, could do so from the variable declared by the
first:
struct used_atom *atom = &used_atom[i];
const char *name = atom->name;
> struct atom_value *v = &val[i];
> - const char *valp = NULL;
> if (!!deref != (*name == '*'))
> continue;
> if (deref)
> name++;
> if (strcmp(name, "subject") &&
> strcmp(name, "body") &&
> - strcmp(name, "contents") &&
> - strcmp(name, "contents:subject") &&
> - strcmp(name, "contents:body") &&
> - strcmp(name, "contents:signature") &&
> - !starts_with(name, "contents:lines="))
> + !starts_with(name, "contents"))
> continue;
This changes behavior in that it will also now match
"contentsanything", whereas the original was much more strict. Is that
desirable? (Genuine question.)
> if (!subpos)
> find_subpos(buf, sz,
--
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