Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Change tweak_untracked_cache() in "read-cache.c" to use a switch() to
> have the compiler assert that we checked all possible values in the
> "enum untracked_cache_setting" type, and likewise remove the "default"
> case in fetch_negotiator_init() in favor of checking for
> "FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET" and "FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE".
>
> See ad0fb659993 (repo-settings: parse core.untrackedCache, 2019-08-13)
> for when the "unset" and "keep" handling for core.untrackedCache was
> consolidated, and aaf633c2ad1 (repo-settings: create
> feature.experimental setting, 2019-08-13) for the addition of the
> "default" pattern in "fetch-negotiator.c".
Covering all possibility is good, but ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fetch-negotiator.c | 3 ++-
> read-cache.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fetch-negotiator.c b/fetch-negotiator.c
> index 57ed5784e14..e7b5878be7c 100644
> --- a/fetch-negotiator.c
> +++ b/fetch-negotiator.c
> @@ -19,7 +19,8 @@ void fetch_negotiator_init(struct repository *r,
> return;
>
> case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_DEFAULT:
> - default:
> + case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET:
> + case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE:
> default_negotiator_init(negotiator);
> return;
> }
> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
> index 9048ef9e905..9dd84d69f00 100644
> --- a/read-cache.c
> +++ b/read-cache.c
> @@ -1944,13 +1944,18 @@ static void tweak_untracked_cache(struct index_state *istate)
>
> prepare_repo_settings(r);
>
> - if (r->settings.core_untracked_cache == UNTRACKED_CACHE_REMOVE) {
> + switch (r->settings.core_untracked_cache) {
> + case UNTRACKED_CACHE_REMOVE:
> remove_untracked_cache(istate);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - if (r->settings.core_untracked_cache == UNTRACKED_CACHE_WRITE)
> + break;
> + case UNTRACKED_CACHE_WRITE:
> add_untracked_cache(istate);
> + break;
> + case UNTRACKED_CACHE_UNSET:
> + case UNTRACKED_CACHE_KEEP:
> + break;
> + }
... this change makes me wonder if
default:
BUG(...);
might have been more appropriate? Are we sure these the flow will
reach here with these two values?
> + return;
> }
I do not see why we want to add a no-op return that wasn't there in
the original. Perhaps later, but definitely not as a part of this
change.
>
> static void tweak_split_index(struct index_state *istate)
