Re: [PATCH v6 5/8] branch: drop non-commit error reporting
- From
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 24, 2015, 06:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAOLa=ZTJJF1U0Qmfs3hs2Y0MGnNO17ADadYCnJWCL9D7Y6RVzA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqtwqlt13d.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes: > >> Remove the error reporting variable to make the code easier to port >> over to using ref-filter APIs. >> >> This also removes the error from being displayed. As branch.c will use >> ref-filter APIs in the following patches, the error checking becomes >> redundant with the error reporting system found in the ref-filter >> (ref-filter.c:1336). > > I would have written > > As branch.c will use ref-filter APIs in the following patches, the error > checking becomes redundant with the error reporting system found in the > ref-filter: error "branch '%s' does not point at a commit" is redundant > with the check performed in ref_filter_handler (ref-filter.c:1336). > Error "some refs could not be read" can only be triggered as a > consequence of the first one hence becomes useless.
This looks better thanks.
Show 18 quoted lines
>
>> @@ -370,10 +369,8 @@ static int append_ref(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid, int flag
>> commit = NULL;
>> if (ref_list->verbose || ref_list->with_commit || merge_filter != NO_FILTER) {
>> commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(oid->hash, 1);
>> - if (!commit) {
>> - cb->ret = error(_("branch '%s' does not point at a commit"), refname);
>> + if (!commit)
>> return 0;
>> - }
>
> Am I correct that the "return 0" statement above is dead code after the
> end of the series?
>
> If so, you should add a comment explaining that it's there "just in
> case" but not supposed to happen, or replace the if statement with
> "assert(commit);" IMHO. I have a preference for assert(): I don't like
> silent failures.This code is removed by the end of the series. We could use an assert() in this patch, but I don't see the point, its removed later either ways when we use ref-filter APIs.
-- Regards, Karthik Nayak