Hi,
El jue., 30 ene. 2020 a las 14:46, Johannes Schindelin
(<Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>) escribió:
>
> Hi Miriam,
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Miriam Rubio wrote:
>
> > @@ -893,18 +901,20 @@ static void check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(struct repository *r,
> > if (check_ancestors(r, rev_nr, rev, prefix))
> > res = check_merge_bases(rev_nr, rev, no_checkout);
> > free(rev);
> > - if (res)
> > - exit(res == -11 ? 0 : -res);
> >
> > - /* Create file BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK. */
> > - fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600);
> > - if (fd < 0)
> > - warning_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"),
> > - filename);
> > - else
> > - close(fd);
> > + if (!res)
> > + {
>
> Please move the opening `{` to the same line as the `if (!res)`.
Noted.
>
> > + /* Create file BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK. */
> > + fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600);
> > + if (fd < 0)
> > + warning_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"),
> > + filename);
> > + else
> > + close(fd);
> > + }
>
> I wonder whether this would be easier to read:
>
> if (res == -11)
> res = 0;
> else if (res)
> ; /* error out */
> else if ((fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600)) < 0)
> res = warning_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"), filename);
> else
> close(fd);
>
Yes, I think it is a good improvement.
> Note: my code explicitly assigns `res = -1` if the file could not be
> created, which is technically a change in behavior, but I think it is
> actually a bug fix.
Aha.
If my mentor is ok with this change, I will apply the improvement you
suggested :).
>
> > done:
> > free(filename);
> > + return res;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -975,7 +985,9 @@ int bisect_next_all(struct repository *r, const char *prefix, int no_checkout)
> > if (read_bisect_refs())
> > die(_("reading bisect refs failed"));
>
> I see that there is still a `die()` here, and you left it alone in this
> patch because at this point, only the callers of
> `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad()` need to be addressed. Good.
>
> At a later point, this will have to be dealt with, of course.
>
> Another thing will need to be handled, too: while I was looking at the
> code whether any resources need to be released (returning a negative
> integer does not release memory or close file handles, unlike `die()`), I
> stumbled across the fact that `term_bad` and `term_good` are file-local
> variables. They will need to be made attributes of a `struct` and will
> need to be released properly, i.e. the ownership will have to be clarified
> (is a failed `bisect_next_all()` responsible for releasing the memory it
> allocated via `read_bisect_terms()`, or its caller?).
>
> Just something to keep in mind. Or better: to jot down in a TODO list.
Ok. I will write this down for future improvements. Thank you!
>
> >
> > - check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(r, prefix, no_checkout);
> > + res = check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(r, prefix, no_checkout);
> > + if (res)
> > + return res;
> >
> > bisect_rev_setup(r, &revs, prefix, "%s", "^%s", 1);
> > revs.limited = 1;
> > diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> > index 826fcba2ed..3442bfe2cb 100644
> > --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> > +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> > @@ -666,7 +666,8 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >
> > switch (cmdmode) {
> > case NEXT_ALL:
> > - return bisect_next_all(the_repository, prefix, no_checkout);
> > + res = bisect_next_all(the_repository, prefix, no_checkout);
> > + break;
> > case WRITE_TERMS:
> > if (argc != 2)
> > return error(_("--write-terms requires two arguments"));
> > @@ -713,5 +714,12 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > return error("BUG: unknown subcommand '%d'", cmdmode);
> > }
> > free_terms(&terms);
> > - return !!res;
> > + /*
> > + * Handle early success
> > + * From check_merge_bases > check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad > bisect_next_all
> > + */
> > + if (res == -11)
> > + res = 0;
>
> Hmm. Is this the correct place, though? Should `bisect_next_all()` not be
> the function that already turns `-11` into `0`? In other words, _which_
> code are we supposed to skip over when `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad()`
> returns `-11`? In other words, where would the `catch` of the
> `try`/`catch` be, if we had portable exceptions in C?
I think there must be a reason to do it there (but I don't know
exactly), because there are some comments in code that say explicitly
that this -11 to 0 is done in cmd_bisect_helper(), when the bisecting
command exits.
>
> > +
> > + return res < 0 ? -res : res;
>
> This is a change in behavior, though: previously we guaranteed that the
> exit code is either 0 on success or 1 upon failure. I am not quite sure
> that we want to change that behavior.
I think this is because different error codes might enable a bisecting
script calling the bisect command that uses this function to do
different things depending on the exit status of the bisect command.
Thank you for reviewing.
Best,
Miriam.
>
> Ciao,
> Dscho
>
> > }
> > --
> > 2.21.1 (Apple Git-122.3)
> >
> >
