On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 10:44:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Make sense.
> 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.
At current, the `fsck_report_ref` can do this. I think I used
`fsck_report_ref` function badly in this case.
> 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".
Yes, we should not die the program. Instead, we need to continuously
check other refs.
> 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()?
I agree that if the FSCK message id could explain the error well, there
is no need for us to provide extra message. But, I want to say the
`fsck_report_ref` is not misdesigned here. It is just the same as the
"fsck.c::report" function which has "const char *fmt, ..." at the end
like the following shows:
int fsck_report_ref(struct fsck_options *options,
struct fsck_ref_report *report,
enum fsck_msg_id msg_id,
const char *fmt, ...)
And I do think "fsck.c::report" function also has the above problems.
Let me give you some examples here in "fsck.c":
report(options, tree_oid, OBJ_TREE,
FSCK_MSG_BAD_FILEMODE,
"contains bad file modes");
report(options, tree_oid, OBJ_TREE,
FSCK_MSG_DUPLICATE_ENTRIES,
"contains duplicate file entries");
...
So, I want to say there is no difference between "fsck_ref_report" and
"fsck.c::report". When I refactored the code in GSoC journey, the main
problem is that we should reuse the original "fsck.c::report" code
instead of writing redundant codes.
The final result is I extract a new function "fsck_vreport" here (I
leverage the original "fsck.c::report" function) which will be called by
"fsck_ref_report" and "fsck.c::report".
static int fsck_vreport(struct fsck_options *options,
void *fsck_report,
enum fsck_msg_id msg_id,
const char *fmt, va_list ap)
