Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> If there are errors in a user edited author-script there was no
> indication of what was wrong. This commit adds some specific error messages
> depending on the problem. It also relaxes the requirement that the
> variables appear in a specific order in the file to match the behavior
> of 'rebase --interactive'.
That relaxing is sensible; there is no reason to insist that the
file we are reading was written by exactly the same writer as we
have.
> diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c
> index b68578bc3f..d42b725273 100644
> --- a/builtin/am.c
> +++ b/builtin/am.c
> @@ -270,8 +270,11 @@ static int parse_key_value_squoted(char *buf, struct string_list *list)
> struct string_list_item *item;
> char *np;
> char *cp = strchr(buf, '=');
> - if (!cp)
> - return -1;
> + if (!cp) {
> + np = strchrnul(buf, '\n');
> + return error(_("unable to parse '%.*s'"),
> + (int) (np - buf), buf);
> + }
We are unable to parse because it is not of KEY='VALUE' form. Is
that something worth reporting, e.g. "no key present in '%.*s'"?
> @@ -280,7 +283,8 @@ static int parse_key_value_squoted(char *buf, struct string_list *list)
> *np = '\0';
> cp = sq_dequote(cp);
> if (!cp)
> - return -1;
> + return error(_("unable to dequote value of '%s'"),
> + item->string);
At this point, item->string is what we earlier found on the left
hand side of the '=', i.e. the key. The message makes sense.
> @@ -308,6 +312,7 @@ static int read_author_script(struct am_state *state)
> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> struct string_list kv = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> int retval = -1; /* assume failure */
> + int i, name_i = -2, email_i = -2, date_i = -2, err = 0;
That -2 is somewhat cute. If we find a dup, then it will become -1
so later check for missing field would not trigger.
> @@ -326,14 +331,38 @@ static int read_author_script(struct am_state *state)
> if (parse_key_value_squoted(buf.buf, &kv))
> goto finish;
>
> - if (kv.nr != 3 ||
> - strcmp(kv.items[0].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_NAME") ||
> - strcmp(kv.items[1].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL") ||
> - strcmp(kv.items[2].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_DATE"))
> + for (i = 0; i < kv.nr; i++) {
> + if (!strcmp(kv.items[i].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_NAME")) {
> + if (name_i >= 0)
> + name_i = error(_("'GIT_AUTHOR_NAME' already given"));
> + else
> + name_i = i;
However, if you have three instances of GIT_AUTHOR_NAME, then
- the first one makes name_i point at it
- the second one triggers an error and name_i becomes -1
- the third one makes name_i point at it again
And name_i is not -2 so we won't give "missing" error, which is OK,
but we end up having a usable name even though we said we detected
duplicate!
You can probably compare name_i with -2 when detecting the dup to
fix it, i.e.
if (name_i != -2)
name_i = error("found dup");
else
name_i = i;
> + } else if (!strcmp(kv.items[i].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL")) {
> + if (email_i >= 0)
> + email_i = error(_("'GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL' already given"));
> + else
> + email_i = i;
> + } else if (!strcmp(kv.items[i].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_DATE")) {
> + if (date_i >= 0)
> + date_i = error(_("'GIT_AUTHOR_DATE' already given"));
> + else
> + date_i = i;
> + } else {
> + err = error(_("unknown variable '%s'"),
> + kv.items[i].string);
> + }
> + }
> + if (name_i == -2)
> + error(_("missing 'GIT_AUTHOR_NAME'"));
> + if (email_i == -2)
> + error(_("missing 'GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL'"));
> + if (date_i == -2)
> + error(_("missing 'GIT_AUTHOR_DATE'"));
> + if (date_i < 0 || email_i < 0 || date_i < 0 || err)
> goto finish;
> - state->author_name = kv.items[0].util;
> - state->author_email = kv.items[1].util;
> - state->author_date = kv.items[2].util;
> + state->author_name = kv.items[name_i].util;
> + state->author_email = kv.items[email_i].util;
> + state->author_date = kv.items[date_i].util;
> retval = 0;
> finish:
> string_list_clear(&kv, !!retval);
