Re: [RFC PATCH 19/21] usage API: use C99 macros for {usage,usagef,die,error,warning,die}*()

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2021, 23:48 UTC
Message-ID: <211229.864k6si8w5.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BHxVTjLFZkM5MBCwymFTzBbyNaoj=hOPYJVV4hBv49eXA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 28 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 8:32 AM Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:
>> >      If you'd like a semi-stable grouping across similar git versions the
>> >      "file/func" pair should be Good Enough for most purposes. Some functions
>> >      might emit multiple errors, but you'd probably want to group them as
>> >      similar enough anyway.
>
> Why would we want to group different errors?  Isn't the point to
> figure out which error is being triggered the most (or which errors)?
> This sounds like it'd leave us with more investigation work to do.

Ideally you wouldn't, i.e. the goal here is to get some approximation of a unique ID for an error across versions.

But unless we're going to assign something like MySQL's error ID's manually any automatic method we pick is only going to be an approximation.

So the question is whether we can have something that's good enough. The current "fmt" feature is fragmented by i18n. That's fixable (at the cost of quite a lot of lines changed), but would something even more succinct be good enough?

Which is why I suggested file/function, i.e. it'll have some duplication, but for an error dashboard using trace2 data I'd think it's probably good enough.

But maybe not. I just wanted to ask about it as a quick question...

Show 5 quoted lines

>> > But I realize that those things don't give you exactly the same things
>> > that "fmt" does, but maybe they're good enough (or even better?), or
>> > not.
>
> I think "fmt" is strictly better, personally.