On 12-feb-2024 17:50:54, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024, at 23:47, Rubén Justo wrote:
> > While we're here, I wonder if silently ignoring a negative value in
> > .padding is the right thing to do.
> >
> > There are several callers of print_columns():
> >
> > builtin/branch.c: print_columns(&output, colopts, NULL);
> > builtin/clean.c: print_columns(&list, colopts, &copts);
> > builtin/clean.c: print_columns(menu_list, local_colopts, &copts);
> > builtin/column.c: print_columns(&list, colopts, &copts);
> > help.c: print_columns(&list, colopts, &copts);
> > wt-status.c: print_columns(&output, s->colopts, &copts);
> >
> > I haven't checked it thoroughly but it seems we don't need to add the
> > check we're adding to builtin/column.c, to any of the other callers.
> > However, it is possible that these or other new callers may need it in
> > the future. If so, we should consider doing something like:
> >
> > diff --git a/column.c b/column.c
> > index c723428bc7..4f870c725f 100644
> > --- a/column.c
> > +++ b/column.c
> > @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@ void print_columns(const struct string_list *list,
> > unsigned int colopts,
> > return;
> > assert((colopts & COL_ENABLE_MASK) != COL_AUTO);
> >
> > + if (opts && (0 > opts->padding))
;-) (fixed)
> > + BUG("padding must be non-negative");
> > +
>
> Sure, I could add a `BUG` for `0 > opts->padding` in v3.
Thank you for considering it.
