Re: [PATCH] am: terminate state files with a newline

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 24, 2015, 05:13 UTC
Message-ID: <20150824051344.GA12490@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy4h16d1f.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:05:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> > -	write_file(am_path(state, "threeway"), 1, state->threeway ? "t" : "f");
> > +	write_file(am_path(state, "threeway"), 1, "%s\n", state->threeway ? "t" : "f");
> 
> Stepping back a bit, after realizing that "write_file()" is a
> short-hand for "I have all information necessary to produce the full
> contents of a file, now go ahead and create and write that and
> close", I have to wonder what caller even wants to create a file
> with an incomplete line at the end.

FWIW, I had a similar thought when reading the original thread. I also noted that all of the callers here pass "1" for the "fatal" parameter, and that they are either bools or single strings. I wonder if:

  void write_state_bool(struct am_state *state, const char *name, int v)
  {
	write_file(am_path(state, name), 1, "%s\n", v ? "t" : "f");
  }

would make the call-sites even easier to read (and of course the "\n" would be dropped here if it does migrate up to write_file()).

Show 7 quoted lines

> @@ -634,6 +641,9 @@ int write_file(const char *path, int fatal, const char *fmt, ...)
>  	va_start(params, fmt);
>  	strbuf_vaddf(&sb, fmt, params);
>  	va_end(params);
> +	if (sb.len)
> +		strbuf_complete_line(&sb);
> +

I think the "if" here is redundant; strbuf_complete_line already handles it.

-Peff