On 06/05 10:12, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > +static int module_set_url(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > +{
> > + int quiet = 0;
> > + const char *newurl;
> > + const char *path;
> > + struct strbuf config_name = STRBUF_INIT;
> > +
> > + struct option set_url_options[] = {
> > + OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("Suppress output for setting url of a submodule")),
> > + OPT_END()
> > + };
> > +
> > + const char *const usage[] = {
> > + N_("git submodule--helper set-url [--quiet] <path> <newurl>"),
> > + NULL
> > + };
>
> Hmph, do we really want all the blank lines in the above?
Apologies,will amend.
> There is only one "struct option" the code in this function needs to
> be aware of and worried about. Isn't naming it set_url_options[]
> overly redundant? Calling it just options[] would save lines here ;-)
I was actually following the format of the other subcommands, will
surely change it.
> > + argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, set_url_options,
> > + usage, 0);
>
> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, usage, 0);
>
> > + if (argc!=2) {
>
> Style. SP around all binary operators like !=, i.e.
>
> if (argc != 2) {
>
> By the way, looking at print_default_remote() that takes no
> arguments wants argc to be 1, and resolve_relative_url() that takes
> only one or two arguments checks for 2 or 3, shouldn't this be
> checking if argc is 3, not 2?
Aren't `path` and `newurl` the only arguments we should worry about
here as 'parse_options' will parse out the other arguments ('git
submodule--helper' and the 'quiet' option) leaving us with only the
aforementioned arguments. Am I missing something here?
To add on, checking for `argc!=3` results in a failure of t7420.
If we have anything but 2 arguments (either less or more) we should have
a failure.
I think that we will do a check for 3 if we pass the macro
`PARSE_OPT_KEEP_ARGV0` in `parse_options()`. So the final code segment
would look like:
argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options,
usage, PARSE_OPT_KEEP_ARGV0);
if (argc != 3) {
usage_with_options(usage, options);
return 1;
}
path = argv[1];
newurl = argv[2];
which does pass t7420. Therefore a stricter check could be:
argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options,
usage, 0);
path = argv[0];
newurl = argv[1];
if (argc != 2 || path == NULL || newurl == NULL) {
usage_with_options(usage, options);
return 1;
}
which passes t7420.
> I thought I pointed it out in my very first review of this series.
>
> ... tries to go back and check, notices that this v4 is not
> ... a reply to v3 or earlier and feels somewhat irritated.
> ... then finally finds the following in the v2 review.
I am very very sorry for this. I undestand how this must feel. Will
ensure this from the next version. :)
