Re: [PATCH] revision: parse integer arguments to --max-count, --skip, etc., more carefully
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Dec 12, 2023, 22:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20231212220505.GA1220605@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqjzpjsbjl.fsf@gitster.g>
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 07:09:02AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > This all looks pretty reasonable to me. > > > > I couldn't help but think, though, that surely we have some helpers for > > this already? But the closest seems to be git_parse_int(), which also > > allows unit factors. I'm not sure if allowing "-n 1k" would be a feature > > or a bug. ;) > > The change in question is meant to be a pure fix to replace a careless > use of atoi(). I do not mind to see a separate patch to add such a > feature later on top.
Oh, I mostly meant that I would have turned to git_parse_int() as that already-existing helper, but it is not suitable because of the extra unit-handling. I think your patch draws the line in the right place.
Show 11 quoted lines
> > I wonder if there are more spots that could benefit.
>
> "git grep -e 'atoi('" would give somebody motivated a decent set of
> #microproject ideas, but many hits are not suited for strtol_i(),
> which is designed to parse an integer at the end of a string. Some
> places use atoi() immediately followed by strspn() to skip over
> digits, which means they are parsing an integer and want to continue
> reading after the integer, which is incompatible with what
> strtol_i() wants to do. They need either a separate helper or an
> updated strtol_i() that optionally allows you to parse the prefix
> and report where the integer ended, e.g., something like:Yeah, I agree this might be a good microproject (or leftoverbits) area, and the semantics for the helper you propose make sense to me.
-Peff