Re: [RFC/ PATCH 2/5] unpack_trees: group errors by type

> Diane Gasselin <diane.gasselin@ensimag.imag.fr> writes:
>
>> +/*
>> + * Store error messages in an array, each case
>> + * corresponding to a error message type
>> + */
>> +typedef enum {
>> +     would_overwrite,
>> +     not_uptodate_file,
>> +     not_uptodate_dir,
>> +     would_lose_untracked,
>> +     would_lose_untracked_removed,
>> +     sparse_not_uptodate_file
>> +} unpack_trees_error;
>> +#define NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR 6
>> +struct rejected_files *unpack_rejects[NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR];
>
> You folks seem to like global variables a lot...  Isn't there a struct
> passed throughout the callchain in unpack_trees that you can attach this
> information to?
>

> Also "rejected_files" is not as technically correct (there are symlinks)
> as "rejected_paths".
>
> Style: we don't encourage "typedef enum { ... } unpack_trees_error";
> instead we tend to just say "enum unpack_trees_error" both in the
> definition and in the use.
>
>> +     if (!porcelain) {
>> +             error(msg,file,action);
>> +             return -1;
>> +     }
>
> Style:
>        if (!porcelain)
>                return error(msg, file, action);
>
>> +static void free_rejected_files(unpack_trees_error e)
>> +{
>> +     while(unpack_rejects[e]->list) {
>
> Style:
>        while (unpack_rejects[e]->list) {
>
>> +static void display_error_msgs()
>> +{
>> +     int i;
>> +     int hasPorcelain = 0;
>
> Style: we don't encourage camelCase.
>
> Whichever way spelled, "has porcelain?" is puzzling.
>
> Is this about "are we issuing error messages as a Porcelain program, or
> are we a plumbing without noisy error messages?"  Or is this about "have
> we said anything in the loop, and if so finish the message with
> 'Aborting'"?  If the former, I would name it after "we are Porcelain";
> if the latter, I would name it after "we said something".
>
>> +     for (i=0; i<NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR; i++) {
>
> Style:
>
>        for (i = 0; i < NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR; i++) {
>
>> +             if (unpack_rejects[i] && unpack_rejects[i]->list) {
>> +                     hasPorcelain = 1;
>> +                     struct rejected_files_list *f = unpack_rejects[i]->list;
>> +                     char *action = unpack_rejects[i]->action;
>> +                     char *file = malloc(unpack_rejects[i]->size+1);
>> +                     *file = '\0';
>> +                     while (f) {
>> +                             strcat(file,"\t");
>> +                             strcat(file,f->file);
>> +                             strcat(file,"\n");
>> +                             f = f->next;
>> +                     }
>> +                     error(unpack_rejects[i]->msg,file,action);
>> +                     free_rejected_files(i);
>
> It feels wrong to malloc() inside the loop (and without freeing, which is
> worse).  At least the code should use strbuf to do something like:
>
>        struct strbuf indented = STRBUF_INIT;
>        for (f = unpack_rejects[i]->list; f; f = f->next)
>                strbuf_addf(&indented, "\t%s\n", f->file);
>        error(..., indented.buf, action);
>        strbuf_release(&indented);
>