Re: [PATCH v6 5/8] branch: drop non-commit error reporting
- From
Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
- Date
- Sep 23, 2015, 18:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <vpqtwqlt13d.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>
- In-Reply-To
- <1443031873-25280-6-git-send-email-Karthik.188@gmail.com>
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
> 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.
Show 9 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.
-- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/