Re: [PATCH v6 08/42] refs.c: change ref_transaction_update() to do error checking and return status
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 14, 2014, 23:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20140514234015.GE9218@google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1398976662-6962-9-git-send-email-sahlberg@google.com>
Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Update ref_transaction_update() do some basic error checking and return > true on error. Update all callers to check ref_transaction_update() for error. > There are currently no conditions in _update that will return error but there > will be in the future. > > Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com> > --- > builtin/update-ref.c | 10 ++++++---- > refs.c | 9 +++++++-- > refs.h | 10 +++++----- > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Revisiting comments from [1]:
* When I call ref_transaction_update, what does it mean that I get a nonzero return value? Does it mean the _update failed and had no effect? What will I want to do next: should I try again or print an error and exit?
Ideally I should be able to answer these questions by reading the signature of ref_transaction_update and the comment documenting it. The comment doesn't say anything about what errors mean here.
* the error message change for the have_old && !old_sha1 case (to add "BUG:" so users know the impossible has happened and translators know not to bother with it) seems to have snuck ahead into patch 28 (refs.c: add transaction.status and track OPEN/CLOSED/ERROR).
* It would be easier to make sense of the error path (does the error message have enough information? Will the user be bewildered?) if there were an example of how ref_transaction_update can fail.
There still doesn't seem to be one by the end of the series.
The general idea still seems sensible.
Thanks, Jonathan
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/246437/focus=247115