From: Patrick Steinhardt Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 07:03:43 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] builtin/receive-pack: report unpack errors via strbuf Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260806213859.816157-5-jltobler@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 04:38:57PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote: > When writing packfiles via `unpack()`, error messages are returned > directly by the function. In preparation for `unpack()` logic being > moved behind a generic ODB transaction interface, update the function to > instead write any error messages to a caller provided strbuf and return > a negative value on error. Call sites are updated to use the error > strbuf accordingly. If only Git had a structured error type, than we wouldn't have to have such ugly workarounds. Anyway, this is a deeper issue and nothing we can blame on this patch series. > diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c > index 8c2d6e5789..7635b82bd3 100644 > --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c > +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c > @@ -2344,8 +2344,8 @@ struct unpack_opts { > int quiet; > }; > > -static const char *unpack(struct odb_transaction *transaction, > - const struct unpack_opts *opts) > +static int unpack(struct odb_transaction *transaction, struct strbuf *err_msg, > + const struct unpack_opts *opts) > { > struct pack_header hdr; > const char *hdr_err; While I'm not a huge fan of error message parameters like this, this change does make the calling convention more straight-forward. A reader probably wouldn't have known beforehand what to do with the return value without reading through docs. Also, we cannot just return the equivalent of `return error("msg")`, as we do want to use and munge the error message as part of the status report we send to the client. > @@ -2551,13 +2559,13 @@ static void update_shallow_info(struct command *commands, > free(ref_status); > } > > -static void report(struct command *commands, const char *unpack_status) > +static void report(struct command *commands, struct strbuf *unpack_status) Should we mark this parameter as `const`? > @@ -2575,14 +2583,14 @@ static void report(struct command *commands, const char *unpack_status) > strbuf_release(&buf); > } > > -static void report_v2(struct command *commands, const char *unpack_status) > +static void report_v2(struct command *commands, struct strbuf *unpack_status) And here, as well? > @@ -2711,8 +2719,8 @@ int cmd_receive_pack(int argc, > PACKET_READ_DIE_ON_ERR_PACKET); > > if ((commands = read_head_info(&reader, &shallow))) { > - const char *unpack_status = NULL; > struct string_list push_options = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP; > + struct strbuf unpack_status = STRBUF_INIT; Can't we reuse this buffer and reset it on every run to save some memory allocations? Patrick