Re: [PATCH] sequencer.c: unify error messages

From: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Date: Oct 13, 2017, 21:12 UTC
Message-ID: <58336f0d-366c-6636-1e94-22afbafdfe4c@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <20171013175157.13634-1-ralf.thielow@gmail.com>

Am 13.10.2017 um 19:51 schrieb Ralf Thielow:

> When ftruncate() in rearrange_squash() fails, we write
> that we couldn't finish the operation on the todo file.
> It is more accurate to write that we couldn't truncate
> as we do in other calls of ftruncate().

Would it make sense to factor out rewriting the to-do file to avoid code duplication in the first place?

Show 17 quoted lines

> While at there, remove a full stop in another error message.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@gmail.com>
> ---
>   sequencer.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> index e258bb646..b0e6459a5 100644
> --- a/sequencer.c
> +++ b/sequencer.c
> @@ -2948,9 +2948,9 @@ int rearrange_squash(void)
>   		if (fd < 0)
>   			res = error_errno(_("could not open '%s'"), todo_file);
>   		else if (write(fd, buf.buf, buf.len) < 0)
> -			res = error_errno(_("could not read '%s'."), todo_file);
> +			res = error_errno(_("could not read '%s'"), todo_file);

                                                       ^^^^
That should read "write", right?

>   		else if (ftruncate(fd, buf.len) < 0)
> -			res = error_errno(_("could not finish '%s'"),
> +			res = error_errno(_("could not truncate '%s'"),
>   					   todo_file);

Hmm, why call ftruncate(2) instead of opening the file with O_TRUNC?

>   		close(fd);
>   		strbuf_release(&buf);
>