Re: [PATCH 0/5] minor ref-filter error-reporting bug-fixes
- From
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
- Date
- Dec 14, 2022, 20:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Y5ospnLHWIKKXadV@nand.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <Y5n3S7cnD7s/AIRL@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:18:19AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> This series fixes a few small inconsistencies in the error-reporting > from ref-filter's atom parsers. Mostly I noticed this while dealing with > unused parameters in one of the parsers, which led to noticing a few > other small bugs. And I hope the result is a little cleaner, as it > should reduce the number of strings needing translation. > > [1/5]: ref-filter: reject arguments to %(HEAD) > [2/5]: ref-filter: factor out "%(foo) does not take arguments" errors > [3/5]: ref-filter: factor out "unrecognized %(foo) arg" errors > [4/5]: ref-filter: truncate atom names in error messages > [5/5]: ref-filter: convert email atom parser to use err_bad_arg()
I gave this series a careful read and found it all very satisfying. The implementation is straightforward and leaves us with several much friendlier error messages in the ref-filter's atom parsing code.
I left one comment throughout, but it was clarified when I read through the rest of the series. So this one looks ready to pick up to my eyes.
Thanks, Taylor