Hi Pranit,
On 12/06/2016 11:40 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephan Beyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 04:14 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
>>> +static int bisect_state(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv,
>>> + int argc)
>>> +{
>>> + const char *state = argv[0];
>>> +
>>> + get_terms(terms);
>>> + if (check_and_set_terms(terms, state))
>>> + return -1;
>>> +
>>> + if (!argc)
>>> + die(_("Please call `--bisect-state` with at least one
>>> argument"));
>>
>> I think this check should move to cmd_bisect__helper. There are also the
>> other argument number checks.
>
> Not really. After the whole conversion, the cmdmode will cease to
> exists while bisect_state will be called directly, thus it is
> important to check it here.
Okay, that's a point.
In that case, you should probably use "return error()" again and the
message (mentioning "--bisect-state") does not make sense when
--bisect-state ceases to exist.
>>> +
>>> + if (argc == 1 && one_of(state, terms->term_good,
>>> + terms->term_bad, "skip", NULL)) {
>>> + const char *bisected_head = xstrdup(bisect_head());
>>> + const char *hex[1];
>>
>> Maybe:
>> const char *hex;
>>
>>> + unsigned char sha1[20];
>>> +
>>> + if (get_sha1(bisected_head, sha1))
>>> + die(_("Bad rev input: %s"), bisected_head);
>>
>> And instead of...
>>
>>> + if (bisect_write(state, sha1_to_hex(sha1), terms, 0))
>>> + return -1;
>>> +
>>> + *hex = xstrdup(sha1_to_hex(sha1));
>>> + if (check_expected_revs(hex, 1))
>>> + return -1;
>>
>> ... simply:
>>
>> hex = xstrdup(sha1_to_hex(sha1));
>> if (set_state(terms, state, hex)) {
>> free(hex);
>> return -1;
>> }
>> free(hex);
>>
>> where:
>
> Yes I am planning to convert all places with hex rather than the sha1
> but not yet, maybe in an another patch series because currently a lot
> of things revolve around sha1 and changing its behaviour wouldn't
> really be a part of a porting patch series.
I was not suggesting a change of behavior, I was suggesting a simple
helper function set_state() to get rid of code duplication above and
some lines below:
>> ... And replace this:
>>
>>> + const char **hex_string = (const char **)
>>> &hex.items[i].string;
>>> + if(bisect_write(state, *hex_string, terms, 0)) {
>>> + string_list_clear(&hex, 0);
>>> + return -1;
>>> + }
>>> + if (check_expected_revs(hex_string, 1)) {
>>> + string_list_clear(&hex, 0);
>>> + return -1;
>>> + }
>>
>> by:
>>
>> const char *hex_str = hex.items[i].string;
>> if (set_state(terms, state, hex_string)) {
>> string_list_clear(&hex, 0);
>> return -1;
>> }
See?
>>> @@ -184,8 +137,8 @@ exit code \$res from '\$command' is < 0 or >= 128" >&2
>>> state="$TERM_GOOD"
>>> fi
>>>
>>> - # We have to use a subshell because "bisect_state" can exit.
>>> - ( bisect_state $state >"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" )
>>> + # We have to use a subshell because "--bisect-state" can exit.
>>> + ( git bisect--helper --bisect-state $state
>>> >"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" )
>>
>> The new comment is funny, but you don't need a subshell here any
>> longer.
>
> True, but right now I didn't want to modify that part of the source
> code to remove the comment. I will remove the comment all together
> when I port bisect_run()
For most of the patches, I was commenting on the current state, not on
the big picture.
Still I think that it is better to remove the comment and the subshell
instead of making the comment weird ("yes the builtin can exit, but why
do we need a subshell?" vs "yes the shell function calls exit, so we
need a subshell because we do not want to exit this shell script")
~Stephan
