Re: [RFC/PATCH v11 04/13] bisect--helper: `bisect_clean_state` shell function in C
- From
Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 3, 2016, 20:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAFZEwPNFohRLCS4piB1t0LO-=keucwzRKZ2Jyhhf234tnWnVGg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqy44fdpxd.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Hey Junio,
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 35 quoted lines
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +static int bisect_clean_state(void)
>> +{
>> + int result = 0;
>> +
>> + /* There may be some refs packed during bisection */
>> + struct string_list refs_for_removal = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
>> + for_each_ref_in("refs/bisect/", mark_for_removal, (void *) &refs_for_removal);
>> + string_list_append(&refs_for_removal, xstrdup("BISECT_HEAD"));
>> + result = delete_refs(&refs_for_removal);
>> + refs_for_removal.strdup_strings = 1;
>> + string_list_clear(&refs_for_removal, 0);
>> + remove_path(git_path_bisect_expected_rev());
>> + remove_path(git_path_bisect_ancestors_ok());
>> + remove_path(git_path_bisect_log());
>> + remove_path(git_path_bisect_names());
>> + remove_path(git_path_bisect_run());
>> + remove_path(git_path_bisect_terms());
>> + /* Cleanup head-name if it got left by an old version of git-bisect */
>> + remove_path(git_path_head_name());
>> + * Cleanup BISECT_START last to support the --no-checkout option
>> + * introduced in the commit 4796e823a.
>> + */
>> + remove_path(git_path_bisect_start());
>
> I can see that refs/files-backend.c misuses it already, but
> remove_path() helper is about removing a path in the working tree,
> together with any parent directory that becomes empty due to the
> removal. You do not expect $GIT_DIR/ to become an empty directory
> after removing $GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG nor want to rmdir $GIT_DIR even
> if it becomes empty. It is a wrong helper function to use here.
>
> Also you do not seem to check the error from the function to smudge
> the "result" you are returning from this function.Yes I should combine the results from every removal.
> Isn't unlink_or_warn() more correct helper to use here?
The shell code uses rm -f which is silent and it removes only if present. So it makes me wonder which would be more appropriate unlink_or_warn() or remove_or_warn() or remove_path(). Is remove_path() different from its shell equivalent "rm -f"?
>> + return result; >> +}
Regards, Pranit Bauva