Re: [PATCH GSoC v18 11/13] cat-file: add remote-object-info to batch-command

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 15, 2026, 17:31 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqjyqwnoqf.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260715-ps-eric-work-rebase-v18-11-34d7adb051bb@gmail.com>

Pablo Sabater <pabloosabaterr@gmail.com> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> +static void parse_cmd_remote_object_info(struct batch_options *opt,
> +					 const char *line, struct strbuf *output,
> +					 struct expand_data *data)
> +{
> +	int count;
> +	const char **argv;
> +	char *line_to_split;
> +	struct object_info *remote_object_info = NULL;
> +	struct oid_array object_info_oids = OID_ARRAY_INIT;
> +
> +	if (strlen(line) >= MAX_REMOTE_OBJ_INFO_LINE)
> +		die(_("remote-object-info command too long"));
> +
> +	line_to_split = xstrdup(line);
> +	count = split_cmdline(line_to_split, &argv);
> +	if (count < 0)
> +		die(_("remote-object-info: %s"), split_cmdline_strerror(count));
> +	if (count - 1 > MAX_ALLOWED_OBJ_LIMIT)
> +		die(_("remote-object-info supports at most %d objects"),
> +		    MAX_ALLOWED_OBJ_LIMIT);
> +
> +	if (get_remote_info(opt, count, argv, &remote_object_info,
> +			    &object_info_oids))
> +		goto cleanup;

Since this function does not return a value, the caller cannot even tell if there was an error if we just silently return like this. Is it really OK to silently ignore such a failure? Should we not die() loudly to report it instead?

Thanks.