On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:47 PM Lucas Oshiro <lucasseikiosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Improve code readability by moving tag body reading to a new function called
> get_tag_body. This function will be used in the following patches to fix the
> --no-edit flag.
This seems to be accidentally duplicated from patch 1/3.
> Enhance legibility by encapsulating code that loads previous tag message
> (if any) in new function prepare_tag_template. This code refactoring is
> part of a series of commits that intend to implement the git tag --amend
> flag and fix the functionality of --no-edit.
>
> Co-authored-by: Bárbara Fernandes <barbara....@gmail.com>
> Helped-by: Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernard...@usp.br>
> Signed-off-by: Lucas Oshiro <lucasseikiosh...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bárbara Fernandes <barbara....@gmail.com>
These tags can be re-ordered as I mentioned in patch 1/3, to follow a
chronological order: probably the Helped-by first followed by the
Co-authored-by, Barbara's S-o-B and then your S-o-B.
> ---
> builtin/tag.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/tag.c b/builtin/tag.c
> index e1e3549af9..0322bdbdfb 100644
> --- a/builtin/tag.c
> +++ b/builtin/tag.c
> @@ -244,6 +244,43 @@ static const char message_advice_nested_tag[] =
> "\n"
> "\tgit tag -f %s %s^{}");
>
> +/*
> + * Write the tag template message with previous tag body (if any) to the
> given
> + * file.
> + */
Maybe mention that the function creates the file at the given path?
> +static void prepare_tag_template(struct strbuf *given_msg,
> + struct create_tag_options *opt,
> + struct object_id *prev, char *path,
> + const char *tag)
I'm wondering if we could simplify this signature. Maybe we could
resolve whether a message was given at CLI, and if a previous tag
already exists, before getting to this function. This way, 'given_msg'
and 'prev' could be collapsed into a single 'struct strbuf *tag_body'
(and we could replace checking 'opt->message_given' and
'is_null_oid(prev)' by checking if 'tag_body' is not NULL). Then, we
could also pass just the 'cleanup_mode" instead of the whole
'create_tag_options'. Does this makes sense?
> +{
> + int fd;
> +
> + fd = open(path, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600);
> + if (fd < 0)
> + die_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"), path);
> +
> + if (opt->message_given) {
> + write_or_die(fd, given_msg->buf, given_msg->len);
> + strbuf_reset(given_msg);
I think keeping this reset at create_tag() (right before
lauch_editor() is called and only if 'opt->message_given') makes it
easier to understand what's happening (because there, we are cleaning
the given 'buf' to use it in lauch_editor()). Calling it here may be
misleading as 'given_msg' is not used in this function anymore.
> + } else if (!is_null_oid(prev)) {
> + write_tag_body(fd, prev);
> + } else {
> + struct strbuf template = STRBUF_INIT;
> + strbuf_addch(&template, '\n');
> + if (opt->cleanup_mode == CLEANUP_ALL) {
> + strbuf_commented_addf(&template, _(tag_template), tag,
> + comment_line_char);
> + } else {
> + strbuf_commented_addf(&template,
> + _(tag_template_nocleanup), tag,
> + comment_line_char);
> + }
> + write_or_die(fd, template.buf, template.len);
> + strbuf_release(&template);
> + }
> + close(fd);
> +}
> +
> static void create_tag(const struct object_id *object, const char
> *object_ref,
> const char *tag,
> struct strbuf *buf, struct create_tag_options *opt,
> @@ -251,7 +288,7 @@ static void create_tag(const struct object_id *object,
> const char *object_ref,
> {
> enum object_type type;
> struct strbuf header = STRBUF_INIT;
> - char *path = NULL;
> + char *path = git_pathdup("TAG_EDITMSG");
>
> type = oid_object_info(the_repository, object, NULL);
> if (type <= OBJ_NONE)
> @@ -271,31 +308,7 @@ static void create_tag(const struct object_id *object,
> const char *object_ref,
> git_committer_info(IDENT_STRICT));
>
> if (!opt->message_given || opt->use_editor) {
> - int fd;
> -
> - /* write the template message before editing: */
> - path = git_pathdup("TAG_EDITMSG");
> - fd = open(path, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600);
> - if (fd < 0)
> - die_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"), path);
> -
> - if (opt->message_given) {
> - write_or_die(fd, buf->buf, buf->len);
> - strbuf_reset(buf);
> - } else if (!is_null_oid(prev)) {
> - write_tag_body(fd, prev);
> - } else {
> - struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> - strbuf_addch(&buf, '\n');
> - if (opt->cleanup_mode == CLEANUP_ALL)
> - strbuf_commented_addf(&buf, _(tag_template),
> tag, comment_line_char);
> - else
> - strbuf_commented_addf(&buf,
> _(tag_template_nocleanup), tag, comment_line_char);
> - write_or_die(fd, buf.buf, buf.len);
> - strbuf_release(&buf);
> - }
> - close(fd);
> -
> + prepare_tag_template(buf, opt, prev, path, tag);
> if (launch_editor(path, buf, NULL)) {
> fprintf(stderr,
> _("Please supply the message using either -m or -F
> option.\n"));
> --
> 2.23.0
>
