Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] read-cache & fetch-negotiator: check "enum" values in switch()

> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:47:17AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Change tweak_untracked_cache() in "read-cache.c" to use a switch() to
>> have the compiler assert that we checked all possible values in the
>> "enum untracked_cache_setting" type, and likewise remove the "default"
>> case in fetch_negotiator_init() in favor of checking for
>> "FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET" and "FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE".
>>
>> As will be discussed in a subsequent we'll only ever have either of
>
> s/subsequent/& patch/ ?

>> these set to FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE, FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET and
>> UNTRACKED_CACHE_UNSET within the prepare_repo_settings() function
>> itself. In preparation for fixing that code let's add a BUG() here to
>> mark this as unreachable code.
>>
>> See ad0fb659993 (repo-settings: parse core.untrackedCache, 2019-08-13)
>> for when the "unset" and "keep" handling for core.untrackedCache was
>> consolidated, and aaf633c2ad1 (repo-settings: create
>> feature.experimental setting, 2019-08-13) for the addition of the
>> "default" pattern in "fetch-negotiator.c".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  fetch-negotiator.c |  4 +++-
>>  read-cache.c       | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fetch-negotiator.c b/fetch-negotiator.c
>> index 57ed5784e14..237f92b8696 100644
>> --- a/fetch-negotiator.c
>> +++ b/fetch-negotiator.c
>> @@ -19,8 +19,10 @@ void fetch_negotiator_init(struct repository *r,
>>  		return;
>>
>>  	case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_DEFAULT:
>> -	default:
>>  		default_negotiator_init(negotiator);
>>  		return;
>> +	case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE:
>> +	case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET:
>> +		BUG("FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET only in prepare_repo_settings()");
>
> I was briefly confused why this BUG message mentioned
> FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET, since we only support FETCH_NEGOTIATION_DEFAULT
> here.
>
> But then I realized that it said "only in prepare_repo_settings()", and
> we're in fetch_negotiator_init(). So this makes sense to me.
>
> Other than the small typo in the patch message, this looks good to me.