From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:50:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] column: disallow negative padding
Message-ID: <09b1ab48-b58f-458c-89f5-0c419d92f61a@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <89d32a5f-b5ab-4773-bd9f-d33b4e348e15@gmail.com>

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))
> +               BUG("padding must be non-negative");
> +

Sure, I could add a `BUG` for `0 > opts->padding` in v3.