On Tue, Nov 08 2022, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote:
> On 2022-11-07 22:40:33+0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 06 2022, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote:
>>
>> > From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Preceding commits fixed output and behavior regressions in
>> > d1bbbe45df8 (bisect--helper: reimplement `bisect_run` shell function
>> > in C, 2021-09-13), which did not claim to be changing the output of
>> > "git bisect run".
>> >
>> > But some of the output it emitted was subjectively better, so once
>> > we've asserted that we're back on v2.29.0 behavior, let's change some
>> > of it back:
>> >
>> > - We now quote the arguments again, but omit the first " " when
>> > printing the "running" line.
>> > - Ditto for other cases where we emitted the argument
>> > - We say "found first bad commit" again, not just "run success"
>>
>> So, something you refactored here was that there's now a
>> do_bisect_run(), and:
>>
>> > -static int do_bisect_run(const char *command, int argc, const char **argv)
>> > +static int do_bisect_run(const char *command, int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED)
>> > {
>> > struct child_process cmd = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>> > - struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>> > + const char *trimed = command;
>> >
>> > - strbuf_join_argv(&buf, argc, argv, ' ');
>> > - printf(_("running %s\n"), buf.buf);
>> > - strbuf_release(&buf);
>> > + while (*trimed && isspace(*trimed))
>> > + trimed++;
>> > + printf(_("running %s\n"), trimed);
>> > cmd.use_shell = 1;
>> > strvec_push(&cmd.args, command);
>> > return run_command(&cmd);
>>
>> Instead of trimming with strbuf_ltrim() we're now using this loop, but
>> in any case, this has had the effect that you're only fixing one of many
>> of the output changes. We're still adding this leading whitespace to the
>> other messages we emit.
>
> Sorry, I can't follow, we're fixing in do_bisect_run, which meant we
> fixed all of the output changes for leading whitespace, no?
>
> 'do_bisect_run' will be called from normal 'git bisect run' iteration
> and also after receiving code 126/127 for the very first run.
>
> Which is the other cases you're talking about?
The other uses of command.buf in my initial version, i.e. I did:
- strbuf_reset(&command);
- strbuf_join_argv(&command, argc, argv, ' ');
+ /* Quoted, but skip initial " " */
+ strbuf_ltrim(&command);
And the command.buf is then used by:
printf(_("running %s\n"), command.buf);
res = run_command_v_opt(run_args.v, RUN_USING_SHELL);
Which your version covers, but also this, in bisect_run() just a few
lines later:
error(_("unable to verify '%s' on good"
" revision"), command.buf);
And, for:
error(_("bisect run failed: exit code %d from"
" '%s' is < 0 or >= 128"), res, command.buf);
In the original *.sh version of this it used the same variable.
But yours deals with the refactored do_bisect_run() from René's
e8de018438e (bisect--helper: factor out do_bisect_run(), 2022-10-27).
So that first "running" takes place in its ownown do_bisect_run()
function, and you only skip past the whitespace in the "const char
*command" local to that function.
Thus you're only trimming the whitespace for 1/3 cases, the 2/3 being
noted in the 04/13 as the ones I didn't write a test for.
I think this squashed in should be functionally equivalent:
diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
index f16b9df8fd6..493e062e76d 100644
--- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c
+++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
@@ -1141,20 +1141,17 @@ static int get_first_good(const char *refname UNUSED,
return 1;
}
-static int do_bisect_run(const char *command, int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED)
+static int do_bisect_run(const char *command, const char *trimmed)
{
struct child_process cmd = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
- const char *trimed = command;
- while (*trimed && isspace(*trimed))
- trimed++;
- printf(_("running %s\n"), trimed);
+ printf(_("running %s\n"), trimmed);
cmd.use_shell = 1;
strvec_push(&cmd.args, command);
return run_command(&cmd);
}
-static int verify_good(const struct bisect_terms *terms, const char *command, int argc, const char **argv)
+static int verify_good(const struct bisect_terms *terms, const char *command, const char *trimmed)
{
int rc;
enum bisect_error res;
@@ -1174,7 +1171,7 @@ static int verify_good(const struct bisect_terms *terms, const char *command, in
if (res != BISECT_OK)
return -1;
- rc = do_bisect_run(command, argc, argv);
+ rc = do_bisect_run(command, trimmed);
res = bisect_checkout(¤t_rev, no_checkout);
if (res != BISECT_OK)
@@ -1187,6 +1184,7 @@ static int bisect_run(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int argc)
{
int res = BISECT_OK;
struct strbuf command = STRBUF_INIT;
+ struct strbuf trimmed = STRBUF_INIT;
const char *new_state;
int temporary_stdout_fd, saved_stdout;
int is_first_run = 1;
@@ -1200,8 +1198,10 @@ static int bisect_run(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int argc)
}
sq_quote_argv(&command, argv);
+ strbuf_addbuf(&trimmed, &command);
+ strbuf_ltrim(&trimmed);
while (1) {
- res = do_bisect_run(command.buf, argc, argv);
+ res = do_bisect_run(command.buf, trimmed.buf);
/*
* Exit code 126 and 127 can either come from the shell
@@ -1211,7 +1211,7 @@ static int bisect_run(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int argc)
* missing or non-executable script.
*/
if (is_first_run && (res == 126 || res == 127)) {
- int rc = verify_good(terms, command.buf, argc, argv);
+ int rc = verify_good(terms, command.buf, trimmed.buf);
is_first_run = 0;
if (rc < 0) {
error(_("unable to verify '%s' on good"
Some of that's a bit of a hassle with e8de018438e, but this way we use
the whitespace-prefixed for run_command(), but not for the output. Maybe
we can just always use the trimmed version, I didn't check.
This approach would also mean that you can drop your 03/13 and 06/13
surrounding this commit, in 03/13 you added that argv/argc because:
[...]
In a later change, we would like to restore the old behaviours,
which would need information regarding argc and argv.
That "later change" is your 04/13, then in 05/13 you're back to them
being UNUSED, before 06/13 finally drops them.
But if we just pass both trimmed & non-trimmed into do_bisect_run() to
begin with we don't need to go through all of that...
