On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 04:38:13PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Or by "duplicate" did you mean the two-line:
>
> > > + error: commit-graph OID lookup chunk is the wrong size
> > > + error: commit-graph required OID lookup chunk missing or corrupted
>
> output. That's because our chunk of the return value from read_chunk()
> is a bit lazy, and does not distinguish "missing chunk" (where we should
> write a string saying so) from errors produced by the callback (where a
> more specific error message has already been written). That's true of
> all of the read_chunk() callers, including the midx ones.
Yeah, I meant duplicate in the sense above.
> This is one of the ways that pair_chunk_expect() could do better without
> adding a lot of code, because it can check the return value from
> read_chunk(). It doesn't help the other cases (like OIDF) that still
> have to call read_chunk() themselves, though. Possibly read_chunk()
> should just take a flag to indicate that it should complain when the
> chunk is missing. And then callers could just do:
>
> if (read_chunk(cf, id, our_callback, CHUNK_REQUIRED)
> return -1; /* no need to complain; either our_callback() did, or
> read_chunk() itself */
We do return CHUNK_NOT_FOUND when we have a missing chunk, which we
could check for individually. But TBH, I don't find the first error all
that useful. In this instance, there's really only one way for the OIDL
chunk to be corrupt, which is that it has the wrong size.
And short of making the error much more robust, e.g.:
error: commit-graph OID lookup chunk is the wrong size (got: $X, wanted: $Y)
and dropping the generic "missing or corrupt" error, I think that just
the generic error is fine here.
> -Peff
Thanks,
Taylor
