Re: [PATCH v1] blame: avoid checking if a file exists on the working tree if a revision is provided
- From
Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 17, 2015, 01:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAOc6etbmjufXLd7eXCtj7triO5190U4ea0RbXB40Br9-gvAwEA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAOc6etbsqZ=gTGido2b3FXZyY+1JRkeF1O9pk37+7qOogaN6oA@mail.gmail.com>
Ok... I think I got how to check revisions / file existence after revisions have been set up.
Sending next patch version
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
> <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - if (!file_exists(path))
>> - die_errno("cannot stat path '%s'", path);
>
> Two things:
> 1
> What I would love to do is check if revisions were provided. Something like:
>
> if (no_revisions() && !file_exists(path))
> die_errno("cannot stat path '%s'", path);
>
> _but_ revisions are set up a little bit later. I don't know right now
> if I could just move it up (I don't think it would be that simple
> because I see there's some messing up with argv and argc in that 'if'
> that encloses the lines I'm removing). Maybe it would make sense to
> move the check for file existence to _after_ revisions have been set
> up? Even without the check for revisions, it's behaving kind of the
> way I mean it to. But I'm sure it'd be more elegant if I checked if
> revisions were provided.
>
> 2 It makes sense to create test cases for this patch, right?
>
> Looking forward to your comments. Thanks in advance.