Re: [PATCH 2/3] pager: factor out a helper to prepare a child process to run the pager
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 16, 2016, 23:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqk2m4kyfw.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20160216232657.GB18634@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 36 quoted lines
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:06:56PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/pager.c b/pager.c
>> index 5dbcc5a..1406370 100644
>> --- a/pager.c
>> +++ b/pager.c
>> @@ -53,6 +53,23 @@ const char *git_pager(int stdout_is_tty)
>> return pager;
>> }
>>
>> +void prepare_pager_args(struct child_process *pager_process, ...)
>> +{
>> + va_list ap;
>> + const char *arg;
>> +
>> + va_start(ap, pager_process);
>> + while ((arg = va_arg(ap, const char *)))
>> + argv_array_push(&pager_process->args, arg);
>> + va_end(ap);
>> +
>> + pager_process->use_shell = 1;
>> + if (!getenv("LESS"))
>> + argv_array_push(&pager_process->env_array, "LESS=FRX");
>> + if (!getenv("LV"))
>> + argv_array_push(&pager_process->env_array, "LV=-c");
>> +}
>
> When reading this, I had to wonder what the "..." args were supposed to
> be. I figured it out when I read the caller, but I wonder if a comment
> would help. Also, we are expecting the pager here as the first argument,
> so maybe:
>
> void prepare_pager_args(struct child_process *pager_process,
> const char *pager, ...);
>
> would be a better signature.;-)
I had that originally, and then incorrectly fed pager to va_start() which broke the whole thing.
Show 7 quoted lines
> That also made me wonder if we could simply > get away with: > > void prepare_pager_args(struct child_process *pager_process, > const char *pager); > > and have callers argv_array_push() themselves afterwards.
After all that may be a nicer way to structure.
Show 9 quoted lines
> And if you put the git_pager() call inside prepare_pager_args (which I > agree would be cleaner), we just have: > > void prepare_pager_args(struct child_process *pager_process); > > which is pretty self-explanatory (though it might need a new name; I'd > be tempted to call it init_pager_process() or something, and actually > have it do the child_process_init() to make sure it is working with a > sane clean slate).
Conceptually I am on the same page, but I am not sure how well that interacts with what "git am -i" codepath wants to do, though.
One big difference between the "we'll feed our output to pager" codepath and "we'll spawn a pager to let a file on the filesystem be read" codepath is that the former needs to call git_pager() and check the NULL-ness of the return value to decide that it does not want to spawn a pager and let the standard output just go straight to the outside world. The latter, on the other hand, does want to spawn something to cause the file to be presented to the end user even git_pager() returns NULL.
And that is why I didn't make this helper call git_pager() itself.