Re: [PATCH 1/2] sha1_name: don't trigger detailed diagnosis for file arguments

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>>
>>> My version reads as
>>>
>>>   try something;
>>>   if (it failed && I'm only here to report an error)
>>>           report_error();
>>>
>>> which I find easier to understand.
>>
>> I agree that _this_ part is easy to understand when written that
>> way.  But then shouldn't there be a blanket "The caller is here only
>> to report an error, but all the previous code didn't find any error,
>> so there is something wrong" check much later in the code before it
>> returns a success?  Or am I being too paranoid?
>
> Currently, there's no problem if get_sha1_with_context_1 returns without
> dying, because the caller does:
>
> 	if (!(arg[0] == ':' && !isalnum(arg[1])))
> 		/* try a detailed diagnostic ... */
> 		get_sha1_with_mode_1(arg, sha1, &mode, 1, prefix);
>
> 	/* ... or fall back the most general message. */
> 	die("ambiguous argument '%s': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.\n"
> 	    "Use '--' to separate paths from revisions", arg);
>
> If we failed to give a nice diagnosis, we give the generic error
> message.
>
> We could add this check within get_sha1_with_context_1 to simplify the
> task of the caller, but that would require adding it before each
> "return" statement, which I think is overkill.