From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:23:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/19] refs.c: return error string from ref_update_reject_duplicates on failure
Message-ID: <CAL=YDWkTcb327q9oqC1Ypm8n6tBgFnGsn2jiAK+fRNq1q74=8g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140425221248.GC9218@google.com>

Thanks.

Replaced with strbuf_addf() instead.

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
>
>> --- a/refs.c
>> +++ b/refs.c
>> @@ -3393,6 +3393,7 @@ static int ref_update_compare(const void *r1, const void *r2)
>>  }
>>
>>  static int ref_update_reject_duplicates(struct ref_update **updates, int n,
>> +                                     char **err,
>>                                       enum action_on_err onerr)
>>  {
>>       int i;
>> @@ -3400,6 +3401,11 @@ static int ref_update_reject_duplicates(struct ref_update **updates, int n,
>>               if (!strcmp(updates[i - 1]->refname, updates[i]->refname)) {
>>                       const char *str =
>>                               "Multiple updates for ref '%s' not allowed.";
>> +                     if (err) {
>> +                             *err = xmalloc(PATH_MAX + 41);
>> +                             snprintf(*err, PATH_MAX + 41, str,
>> +                                      updates[i]->refname);
>> +                     }
>
> Same issues as the previous patch: it's too easy to get the buffer size
> wrong when updating the message (or, worse, when making it
> translatable).  aprintf or a strbuf should work better.
>
> Otherwise seems sensible.