Re: [PATCH 1/4] sha1_name: introduce getn_sha1() to take length
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 3, 2012, 22:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120403220817.GE19858@burratino>
- In-Reply-To
- <1333029495-10034-2-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com>
(cc-ing Clément who is one of the last people to change this family of APIs, and Matthieu who knows these codepaths well and may have been a mentor for that project) Hi,
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> [Subject: sha1_name: introduce getn_sha1() to take length]
You're probably going to hate this, but oh well:
I love the new function. I really dislike its name. Do we have any other (function that takes a C-style string/function that takes a buffer with length) pairs in the spirit of strchr/memchr to draw inspiration from?
Show 12 quoted lines
> --- a/sha1_name.c > +++ b/sha1_name.c > @@ -1019,12 +1019,11 @@ static char *resolve_relative_path(const char *rel) > rel); > } > > -int get_sha1_with_context_1(const char *name, unsigned char *sha1, > - struct object_context *oc, > - int only_to_die, const char *prefix) > +static int getn_sha1_with_context_1(const char *name, int namelen, > + unsigned char *sha1, struct object_context *oc, > + int only_to_die, const char *prefix)
Holy cow this function is going crazy. So let's take a survey of the public functions in this family.
get_sha1(name, sha1)::
Looks up a sha1 expression like xyz^ and returns the corresponding object name in the 20-byte buffer sha1. Returns -1 on failure.
get_sha1_with_mode(name, sha1, mode)::
Like get_sha1, but when name refers to a path within a tree, also returns the mode in *mode.
get_sha1_with_context(name, sha1, context)::
Likewise, but also returns the parsed <tree, path> pair.
get_sha1_with_mode_1(name, sha1, mode, flag, prefix)::
Like get_sha1_with_mode, but with some extra features:
- flag indicates whether we are in the "detailed diagnosis" codepath and only calling this function for the side-effect of die()-ing with a meaningful message.
- prefix indicates the cwd prefix for use in the "did you mean?" diagnostic.
get_sha1_with_context_1(name, sah1, context, flag, prefix)::
Variant in the same vein for get_sha1_with_context.
Plus the corresponding variants with "name, namelen" pairs after your patch.
My first reaction is that the meaning of the _1 suffix is not going to be obvious to newcomers. Any ideas for addressing that?
"get_sha1_with_context_1" has no external callers so it could probably be made private. So there could be a sequence of functions with increasing detail:
get_sha1(name, sha1) get_sha1_with_mode(name, sha1, mode) get_sha1_with_context(name, sha1, context) die_sha1_not_in_index(name, sha1, context, prefix)
The "len" argument could be introduced at some convenient place in this list to avoid having to change too many callers, for example:
get_sha1(name, sha1) get_sha1_with_mode(name, sha1, mode) get_sha1_with_context(name, namelen, sha1, context) die_sha1_not_in_index(name, namelen, sha1, context, prefix)
Or maybe it makes sense to bite the bullet and add the length argument to all callers:
get_sha1(name, namelen, sha1) get_sha1_with_mode(name, namelen, sha1, mode) get_sha1_with_context(name, namelen, sha1, context) die_sha1_not_in_index(name, namelen, sha1, context, prefix)
If I were doing it, I might just ask the maintainer to make the decision for me, by making a somewhat funny patch series:
1. add "how to use the get_sha1 family" to Documentation/technical.
2. make get_sha1_with_context_1 static.
3. replace get_sha1_with_mode_1 with simpler die_sha1_not_in_index
function.
4. add namelen argument to die_sha1_not_... and
get_sha1_with_context, adjust callers, and make use of
get_sha1_with_context with this arg in sequencer code.
5. add namelen arg to get_sha1_with_mode, adjust callers, and
make sequencer code use this instead.
6. add namelen arg to get_sha1, adjust callers, and make sequener
code use this instead.That way, the maintainer could take patches 1 - 3 to get the basic API cleanup, patch 4 to get the sequencer enhancement and make a judgement call about whether to take patches 5 and 6 depending on how much of a pain the churn would be given other patches in flight.
What do you think? Jonathan