Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: fix edit handling for cherry-pick and revert messages

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2021, 18:47 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq7dloeawf.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2103301200020.52@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

>> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static int run_sequencer(int argc, const char **argv, struct replay_opts *opts)
>>  				"--signoff", opts->signoff,
>>  				"--no-commit", opts->no_commit,
>>  				"-x", opts->record_origin,
>> -				"--edit", opts->edit,
>> +				"--edit", opts->edit == 1,
>
> Honestly, I'd prefer `> 0` here.

Unless somebody (including Elijah) is trying to soon introduce yet another value to .edit member, I'd agree 100%. If it is a tristate (unspecified, no, yes), I think "is it positive" should be the way to ask "does the user definitely wants it?", "is it zero" should be the way to ask "does the user definitely declines it?" and "is it non-negative" (and "is it negative") the way to ask "does the user care (or not care)?". Using that consistently is good.

Show 7 quoted lines

>> +static int should_edit(struct replay_opts *opts) {
>> +	assert(opts->edit >= -1 && opts->edit <= 1);
>
> Do we really want to introduce more of these useless `assert()`s? I know
> that we stopped converting them to `BUG()`, but I really dislike
> introducing new ones: they have very little effect, being no-ops by
> default in most setups.

Yeah, in a new code in flux where programmers can easily make errors, "if (...) BUG()" may not be a bad thing to add (but then we may want to see if we can make the codepaths involved less error prone), but I agree with your view that assert() is mostly useless. A comment that explains the expectation and why that expectation is there would be more useful.

>> +	if (opts->edit == -1)
>
> Maybe `< 0`, as we do elsewhere for "not specified"?

Yup.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> +		/*
>> +		 * Note that we only handle the case of non-conflicted
>> +		 * commits; continue_single_pick() handles the conflicted
>> +		 * commits itself instead of calling this function.
>> +		 */
>> +		return (opts->action == REPLAY_REVERT && isatty(0)) ? 1 : 0;
>
> Apart from the extra parentheses, that makes sense to me.

I can take it either way (but personally I think this particular one is easier to see as written---this is subjective).

> ...
> The rest looks good, and the comments are _really_ helpful.

Yup, I agree.

Thanks for a review.