Re: [PATCH 3/9] fsck_tree(): wrap some long lines

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 3, 2021, 20:23 UTC
Message-ID: <YJBb2k4yUipefmzM@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <87v980vz2f.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 01:22:13PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Sat, May 01 2021, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > Many calls to report() in fsck_tree() are kept on a single line and are
> > quite long. Most were pretty big to begin with, but have gotten even
> > longer over the years as we've added more parameters. Let's accept the
> > churn of wrapping them in order to conform to our usual line limits.
> 
> If we're going to have the churn I'd say just wrap the rest of the file
> as well, now it's mostly-consistent in having these long lines.
> 
> FWIW I think having the long lines makes things more readable in this
> case, but the inconsistency is worse.

I'm not sure I agree. It depends on how big a chunk you consider for consistency: a function, a file, or the whole project.

fsck_tree() was already inconsistent, so this is making that function totally consistent. Since that was the function I was working in, that seemed like the limit of "while I'm here", and I'd prefer to keep it there for the series.

I certainly don't mind extra clean up on top, though.

As far as preferring the long lines, I don't mind lines a _little_ long, but some of these are 120+ characters. They wrap awkwardly even on my extra-wide terminals. ;) I guess we can have a discussion on whether long lines are OK, but it should probably center on what we put into CodingGuidelines, and not these particular lines.

> I wonder if this whole thing wouldn't be better by declaring the format
> in the msg_id_info struct. I.e. add this to fsck.h, but that's an even
> bigger change...

I think it gets tricky, as not all of the strings have the same number and type of format specifiers (most don't have any, but verify_headers() for example uses %ld).

-Peff