Hi Alex,
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 08:46:29AM -0500, Alex Torok wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback Denton & Phillip!
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:52 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 06/12/2019 01:48, Denton Liu wrote:
> > > nit: * should be attached to the variable name.
> >
> > I think you also need to free it once you've called get_fork_point() as
> > well.
>
> Yup. Got it.
>
> > On 06/12/2019 01:48, Denton Liu wrote:
> > >
> > >> + dwim_ref_or_die(options.upstream_name, strlen(options.upstream_name), &full_name);
> > >
> > > Also, thinking about this more, would it be possible to put the dwim_ref
> > > logic into get_fork_point() directly? There are currently only these two
> > > callers so I suspect it should be fine and it'll result in cleaner
> > > logic.
> >
> > If you do that then it would be better to use error() rather than die()
> > in get_fork_point() and return an error to the caller as we try to avoid
> > adding code to libgit that dies. This lets the caller handle any cleanup
> > that they need to before exiting.
>
> Would the signature of get_fork_point change to be something like:
> int get_fork_point(const char *refname, struct commit *commit,
> struct commit **fork_point, struct strbuf *err)
I would drop the last parameter. If an error is detected, you could just
do
return error(_("oh no, something bad happened"));
Even though we try and avoid dying in the middle of libgit, we print
errors out very often so it should be fine here.
> > > Also, I'm not why this test case in particular that was duplicated (and
> > > not the one above) given that the first three `--fork-point` test cases
> > > fail without the change to rebase. Perhaps we want to duplicate all
> > > "refs/heads/master" tests with a corresponding "master" test?
>
> I only duplicated one so that there would only be one test case that
> would fail if a regression around getting the fork point with a short
> ref name was introduced.
>
> I just happened to pick that one because it was closest to the rebase
> command I was running when I found the bug :)
>
> I can include some of the above reasoning in the commit message.
> Alternatively:
> * I could duplicate all of tests
> * I could change all of the tests to use the short ref name
>
> I'm leaning towards just leaving one test (maybe with a comment?)
> for the short ref name --fork-point so that there is more resolution
> around where a bug could be on test failure.
I would just duplicate all of the tests. When the tests are pretty cheap
to run (as they are in this case), I tend to err on the side of adding
more tests since they might catch more odd edge-cases but, in this case,
all of the fork point logic goes through one common block so the
duplicate logic doesn't really buy us anything.
I'm pretty impartial so I'll leave it up to you ;)
Thanks,
Denton
>
> Let me know what you think,
> Alex
