Re: [PATCH 1/3] test-tool: add pack-deltas helper

> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:34:01AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 05:40:02PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/t/helper/test-pack-deltas.c b/t/helper/test-pack-deltas.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000000..db7d1c3cd1f
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/t/helper/test-pack-deltas.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
> > > [snip]
> > > > +int cmd__pack_deltas(int argc, const char **argv)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int N;
> > > > +	struct hashfile *f;
> > > > +	struct strbuf line = STRBUF_INIT;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (argc != 2) {
> > > > +		usage(usage_str);
> > > > +		return -1;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	N = atoi(argv[1]);
> > > 
> > > Is there a reason why we don't use `parse_options()` here? It might make
> > > this tool easier to use and extend going forward, and we wouldn't have
> > > to care about invalid arguments. Right now, we silently accept a
> > > non-integer argument and do the wrong thing.
> > 
> > I think that `parse_options()` would be overkill here because:
> > 
> > - This is a _mandatory_ argument, not an optional one.
> > 
> > - The required data type is `uint32_t`, and `parse_options()` has no
> >   support for that.
> 
> Support for that has been merged just this week via 2bc5414c411 (Merge
> branch 'ps/parse-options-integers', 2025-04-24).

> > But you do have a good point in that we may want to validate the data type
> > (even if technically, this is not a user-facing program, it's a test
> > helper that is used under tight control by Git's own test suite).
> > 
> > Consequently, I would suggest this fixup instead:
> 
> But in any case, I'd be equally fine with your suggestion.