Re: [PATCH 1/5] ref-filter: support different email formats
- From
Hariom verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 28, 2020, 20:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CA+CkUQ9nqW8=GuvNapsySf=EXm8c02qKV2xMrwvRY-Kd9Yy9mA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqeeowfu75.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:21 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> > "Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > > From: Hariom Verma <hariom18599@gmail.com> > > > > Currently, ref-filter only supports printing email with arrow brackets. > > This is the first time I heard the term "arrow bracket". Aren't > they more commonly called angle brackets?
Yeah. Sorry about that.
> > Let's add support for two more email options. > > - trim : print email without arrow brackets. > > Why would this be useful?
It might be useful for using the ref-filter's logic in pretty.c (especially for `--pretty` formats like `%an` and `%cn`)
> > - localpart : prints the part before the @ sign > > Meaning I'd get "<gitster" for me?
No, you'll get "gitster".
> Building small pieces of new feature in each patch is good, and > adding tests to each step is also good. Why not do the same for > docs?
Yeah, I agree with you. I should have focused on documentation too.
> > +static struct email_option{
>
> Missing SP.I'll fix it.
Show 13 quoted lines
> > + enum { EO_INVALID, EO_RAW, EO_TRIM, EO_LOCALPART } option;
> > +} email_option;
> > +
> > @@ -1040,10 +1044,26 @@ static const char *copy_email(const char *buf)
> > const char *eoemail;
> > if (!email)
> > return xstrdup("");
> > - eoemail = strchr(email, '>');
>
> The original code prepares to see NULL from this strchr(); that is
> why it checks eoemail for NULL and returns an empty string---the
> data is broken (i.e. not an address in angle brackets), which this
> code cannot do anything about---in the later part of the code.I think this commit still takes care of NULL.
After the switch-case statements, code consists of:
```
if (!eoemail)
return xstrdup("");
```
Which checks eoemail for NULL. And will return empty string if address
is not in angle brackets.
Same applies for local-part too. If '@' is not present in email
address, it will still return empty string.Show 6 quoted lines
> > + switch (email_option.option) {
> > + case EO_RAW:
> > + eoemail = strchr(email, '>') + 1;
>
> And this breaks the carefully laid out error handling by the
> original code. Adding 1 to NULL is quite undefined.Yeah. I'll take care of it in the next version.
Show 16 quoted lines
> > + break; > > + case EO_TRIM: > > + email++; > > + eoemail = strchr(email, '>'); > > + break; > > + case EO_LOCALPART: > > + email++; > > + eoemail = strchr(email, '@'); > > The undocumented design here is that you want to return "hariom" for > "<hariom@gmail.com>", i.e. out of the "trimmed" e-mail, the part > before the at-sign is returned. > > If the data were "<hariom>", you'd still want to return "hariom" no? > But because you do not check for NULL, you end up returning an empty > string.
I never heard of email address without '@' symbol. Thats why I returned empty string.
Will fix that too.
> I think you want to cut at the first '@' or '>', whichever comes > first.
If email data can be without '@' symbol, then I guess "yes".
Show 14 quoted lines
> > + break; > > + case EO_INVALID: > > + default: > > Invalid and unhandled ones are silently ignored and not treated as > an error? I would have thought that at least the "default" one > would be a BUG(), as you covered all the possible values for the > enum with case arms. I wouldn't be surprised if seeing EO_INVALID > is also a BUG(), i.e. the control flow that led to the caller to > call this function with EO_INVALID in email_option.option is likely > to be broken. It's not like you return "" to protect yourself when > fed a bad data from objects---a bad value in .option can only come > here if the parser you wrote for "--format=<string>" produced a > wrong result.
Christian <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> also suggested me the same. Will fix this too.
BTW, on master "{author,committer,tagger}email:<xyz>" does not print any error.Show 39 quoted lines
> > + return xstrdup("");
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!eoemail)
> > return xstrdup("");
> > - return xmemdupz(email, eoemail + 1 - email);
> > + return xmemdupz(email, eoemail - email);
> > }
> >
> > static char *copy_subject(const char *buf, unsigned long len)
> > @@ -1113,7 +1133,7 @@ static void grab_person(const char *who, struct atom_value *val, int deref, void
> > continue;
> > if (name[wholen] != 0 &&
> > strcmp(name + wholen, "name") &&
> > - strcmp(name + wholen, "email") &&
> > + !starts_with(name + wholen, "email") &&
> > !starts_with(name + wholen, "date"))
> > continue;
> > if (!wholine)
> > @@ -1124,8 +1144,16 @@ static void grab_person(const char *who, struct atom_value *val, int deref, void
> > v->s = copy_line(wholine);
> > else if (!strcmp(name + wholen, "name"))
> > v->s = copy_name(wholine);
> > - else if (!strcmp(name + wholen, "email"))
> > + else if (starts_with(name + wholen, "email")) {
> > + email_option.option = EO_INVALID;
> > + if (!strcmp(name + wholen, "email"))
> > + email_option.option = EO_RAW;
> > + if (!strcmp(name + wholen, "email:trim"))
> > + email_option.option = EO_TRIM;
> > + if (!strcmp(name + wholen, "email:localpart"))
> > + email_option.option = EO_LOCALPART;
>
> The ref-filter formatting language already knows many "colon plus
> modifier" suffix like "refname:short" and "contents:body", but I do
> not think we have ugly repetition like the above code to parse them.
> Perhaps the addition for "email:<whatever>" can benefit from
> studying and mimicking existing practices a bit more?
>For "email:<whatever>",
even If I parse that <whatever>. I still make comparison something like:
```
if (!modifier)
email_option.option = EO_RAW;
else if (!strcmp(modifier, "trim"))
email_option.option = EO_TRIM;
else if (!strcmp(arg, "localpart"))
email_option.option = EO_LOCALPART;
```Thanks, Hariom