shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 12:43:20AM -0700, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > + if (strbuf_read_file(&ref_content, iter->path.buf, 0) < 0) {
>> > + ret = fsck_report_ref(o, &report,
>> > + FSCK_MSG_BAD_REF_CONTENT,
>> > + "cannot read ref file");
>> > + goto cleanup;
>> > + }
>> > +
>>
>> Shouldn't we use `die_errno` here instead? I mean, this is not really a
>> bad ref content issue. If we don't want to die here, it would still
>> probably be nice to get the actual issue using `strerror` instead and
>> use that instead of the generic message we have here.
>>
>
> Well, I think I need to dive into the "open" system call here. Actually,
> we have two opinions now. Junio thought that we should use
> "fsck_report_ref" to report. Karthik, Patrick and I thought that we
> should report using "*errno" because this is a general error.
What do you mean by "a general error"? It is true that we failed to
read a ref file, so even if it is an I/O error, I'd think it is OK
to report it as an error while reading one particular ref.
Giving more information is a separate issue. If fsck_report_ref()
can be extended to take something like
"cannot read ref file '%s': (%s)", iter->path.buf, strerror(errno)
that would give the user necessary information.
And I agree with half-of what Karthik said, i.e., we do not want to
die here if this is meant to run as a part of "git fsck".
I may have said this before, but quite frankly, the API into the
fsck_report_ref() function is misdesigned. If the single constant
string "cannot read ref file" cnanot give more information than
FSCK_MSG_BAD_REF_CONTENT, the parameter has no value.
The fsck.c:report() function, which is the main function to report
fsck's findings before fsck_report_ref() was introduced, did not
have such a problem, as it allowed "const char *fmt, ..." at the
end. Is it too late to fix the fsck_report_ref()?
Thanks.
