Hello Johannes,
W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:06, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
> The write_message() function safely writes an strbuf to a file.
> Sometimes this is inconvenient, though: the text to be written may not
> be stored in a strbuf, or the strbuf should not be released after
> writing.
By "this" you mean "using strbuf", isn't it? It is not very obvious,
and I think it would be better to say it explicitly.
>
> Let's allow for such use cases by refactoring write_message() to allow
> for a convenience function write_file_gently(). As some of the upcoming
> callers of that new function will want to append a newline character,
> let's just add a flag for that, too.
This paragraph feels a bit convoluted.
As I understand it, you refactor "safely writing string to a file"
into write_with_lock_file(), and make write_message() use it. The
new function makes it easy to create new convenience function
write_file_gently(); as some of the upcoming callers of this new
function would want to append a newline character, add a flag for
it in write_file_gently(), and thus in write_with_lock_file().
Isn't it better / easier to understand?
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
> ---
> sequencer.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> index 5efed2e..f5b5e5e 100644
> --- a/sequencer.c
> +++ b/sequencer.c
> @@ -239,22 +239,37 @@ static void print_advice(int show_hint, struct replay_opts *opts)
> }
> }
>
> -static int write_message(struct strbuf *msgbuf, const char *filename)
> +static int write_with_lock_file(const char *filename,
> + const void *buf, size_t len, int append_eol)
> {
> static struct lock_file msg_file;
>
> int msg_fd = hold_lock_file_for_update(&msg_file, filename, 0);
> if (msg_fd < 0)
> return error_errno(_("Could not lock '%s'"), filename);
> - if (write_in_full(msg_fd, msgbuf->buf, msgbuf->len) < 0)
> + if (write_in_full(msg_fd, buf, len) < 0)
> return error_errno(_("Could not write to %s"), filename);
You could have, for consistency, add quotes around filename (see previous
error_errno callsite), *while at it*:
return error_errno(_("Could not write to '%s'"), filename);
> - strbuf_release(msgbuf);
> + if (append_eol && write(msg_fd, "\n", 1) < 0)
> + return error_errno(_("Could not write eol to %s"), filename);
Same here, and it wouldn't even be 'while at it'
+ return error_errno(_("Could not write eol to '%s'"), filename);
> if (commit_lock_file(&msg_file) < 0)
> return error(_("Error wrapping up %s."), filename);
Another "while at it"... though the one that can be safely postponed
(well, the make message easier to understand part, not the quote
filename part):
return error(_("Error wrapping up writing to '%s'."), filename);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int write_message(struct strbuf *msgbuf, const char *filename)
> +{
> + int res = write_with_lock_file(filename, msgbuf->buf, msgbuf->len, 0);
> + strbuf_release(msgbuf);
> + return res;
> +}
Nice.
> +
> +static int write_file_gently(const char *filename,
> + const char *text, int append_eol)
> +{
> + return write_with_lock_file(filename, text, strlen(text), append_eol);
> +}
Nice. And it is static function, so we don't need to come up
with a better function name (to describe its function better).
> +
> /*
> * Reads a file that was presumably written by a shell script, i.e.
> * with an end-of-line marker that needs to be stripped.
>
And thus we got to the last patch in this series. I have skipped
patches that already got reviewed; are there some that you would
like to have second review of? Is there patch series that needs
to be applied earlier that needs a review?
P.S. I'll try to respond to your comments later today.
Regards,
--
Jakub Narębski