On 15-Jun-2021, at 01:21, Rafael Silva <rafaeloliveira.cs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Atharva Raykar <raykar.ath@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> ---
>> builtin/submodule--helper.c | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> git-submodule.sh | 28 +--------
>> 2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>
> I do not have enough expertise to judge the entire content of this
> patch. I would like, however, to propose a slight code change for the
> sake of readability.
>
>> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> index 6dffaeb6cb..c4b2aa6537 100644
>> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> @@ -2935,6 +2935,124 @@ static int add_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void configure_added_submodule(struct add_data *add_data)
>> +{
>> + char *key, *submod_pathspec = NULL;
>> + struct child_process add_submod = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>> + struct child_process add_gitmodules = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>> + int pathspec_key_exists, activate = 0;
>> +
>> + key = xstrfmt("submodule.%s.url", add_data->sm_name);
>> + git_config_set_gently(key, add_data->realrepo);
>> + free(key);
>> +
>> + add_submod.git_cmd = 1;
>> + strvec_pushl(&add_submod.args, "add",
>> + "--no-warn-embedded-repo", NULL);
>> + if (add_data->force)
>> + strvec_push(&add_submod.args, "--force");
>> + strvec_pushl(&add_submod.args, "--", add_data->sm_path, NULL);
>> +
>> + if (run_command(&add_submod))
>> + die(_("Failed to add submodule '%s'"), add_data->sm_path);
>> +
>> + key = xstrfmt("submodule.%s.path", add_data->sm_name);
>> + config_set_in_gitmodules_file_gently(key, add_data->sm_path);
>> + free(key);
>
> This above three lines of code is very similar to the two operations that
> follows (including the one inside the `if (add_data->branch)`
> condition. So [ ... ]
>
>> + key = xstrfmt("submodule.%s.url", add_data->sm_name);
>> + config_set_in_gitmodules_file_gently(key, add_data->repo);
>> + free(key);
>> + if (add_data->branch) {
>> + key = xstrfmt("submodule.%s.branch", add_data->sm_path);
>> + config_set_in_gitmodules_file_gently(key, add_data->branch);
>> + free(key);
>> + }
>> +
>
> [ ... ] it might be worth to write a small wrapper that will perform: (1)
> `xstrfmt()` on the specified config section, (2) set the configuration
> in the file and (3) free()'ing the variable inside the wrapper. Thus,
> most of these code will become one liners that is easier to read (given
> the function is properly named :) ).
>
> After abstracting the code on the wrapper, this code will become
> something like:
>
>
> function_properly_named("submodule.%s.path", add_data->sm_name, add_data->sm_path);
> function_properly_named("submodule.%s.url", add_data->sm_name, add_data->repo);
> if (add_data->branch)
> function_properly_named("submodule.%s.branch", add_data->sm_path, add_data->branch);
>
>
> Just as an example, here's a diff to demonstrate the argument:
>
> -- >8 --
> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> index 65f79fbd53..48ea909f51 100644
> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> @@ -2934,6 +2934,14 @@ static int add_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +void add_config_in_submodules_file(const char *keyfmt, const char *submodule,
> + const char *value)
> +{
> + char *key = xstrfmt(keyfmt, submodule);
> + config_set_in_gitmodules_file_gently(key, value);
> + free(key);
> +}
> +
> static void configure_added_submodule(struct add_data *add_data)
> {
> char *key, *submod_pathspec = NULL;
> @@ -2955,17 +2963,10 @@ static void configure_added_submodule(struct add_data *add_data)
> if (run_command(&add_submod))
> die(_("Failed to add submodule '%s'"), add_data->sm_path);
>
> - key = xstrfmt("submodule.%s.path", add_data->sm_name);
> - config_set_in_gitmodules_file_gently(key, add_data->sm_path);
> - free(key);
> - key = xstrfmt("submodule.%s.url", add_data->sm_name);
> - config_set_in_gitmodules_file_gently(key, add_data->repo);
> - free(key);
> - if (add_data->branch) {
> - key = xstrfmt("submodule.%s.branch", add_data->sm_path);
> - config_set_in_gitmodules_file_gently(key, add_data->branch);
> - free(key);
> - }
> + add_config_in_submodules_file("submodule.%s.path", add_data->sm_name, add_data->sm_path);
> + add_config_in_submodules_file("submodule.%s.url", add_data->sm_name, add_data->repo);
> + if (add_data->branch)
> + add_config_in_submodules_file("submodule.%s.branch", add_data->sm_path, add_data->branch);
>
> add_gitmodules.git_cmd = 1;
> strvec_pushl(&add_gitmodules.args,
>
> -- >8 --
>
> A proper name than "add_config_in_submodules_file" should be considered - I'm
> not very good in naming things.
>
> These change does (should) not change the behavior of code, even though
> I believe it make the code simpler to read, I do not have strong
> opinions about it. So, take this proposal as you wish.
I agree with you, this will make the code simpler to read. It also
made me realise one thing that I did not replicate exactly from the
shell code.
The original shell code calls 'module_config()', which does an extra
check to see if writing to '.gitmodules' is okay. I did not perform
this check, and including that in the wrapper you propose will be a
good idea.
> --
> Thanks
> Rafael
