Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] branch.c: replace `git_config()` with `git_config_get_string()`
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 21, 2014, 17:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqiomqk2yu.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1405941145-12120-3-git-send-email-tanayabh@gmail.com>
Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@gmail.com> writes:
Show 47 quoted lines
> Use `git_config_get_string()` instead of `git_config()` to take advantage of
> the config-set API which provides a cleaner control flow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@gmail.com>
> ---
> branch.c | 24 ++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
> index 46e8aa8..827307f 100644
> --- a/branch.c
> +++ b/branch.c
> @@ -140,33 +140,17 @@ static int setup_tracking(const char *new_ref, const char *orig_ref,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -struct branch_desc_cb {
> - const char *config_name;
> - const char *value;
> -};
> -
> -static int read_branch_desc_cb(const char *var, const char *value, void *cb)
> -{
> - struct branch_desc_cb *desc = cb;
> - if (strcmp(desc->config_name, var))
> - return 0;
> - free((char *)desc->value);
> - return git_config_string(&desc->value, var, value);
> -}
> -
> int read_branch_desc(struct strbuf *buf, const char *branch_name)
> {
> - struct branch_desc_cb cb;
> + const char *v = NULL;
> struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
> strbuf_addf(&name, "branch.%s.description", branch_name);
> - cb.config_name = name.buf;
> - cb.value = NULL;
> - if (git_config(read_branch_desc_cb, &cb) < 0) {
> + if (git_config_get_string(name.buf, &v)) {
> strbuf_release(&name);
> return -1;
> }
> - if (cb.value)
> - strbuf_addstr(buf, cb.value);
> + strbuf_addstr(buf, v);
> + free((char*)v);In this cast, I smell an API mistake to insist an extra constness to the output parameter of git_config_get_string() in [3/4] of the previous series. Unlike the underlying git_config_get_value(), which lets the caller peek into the internal cached copy, the caller of git_config_get_string() is given its own copy, and I do not offhand see a good reason to forbid the caller from modifying it.
> strbuf_release(&name); > return 0; > }