On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Pranit Bauva wrote: > >> Convert the code literally without changing its design even though it >> seems that its obscure as to the use of comparing revision to different > > s/its/it is/
Sure! A typo. >> bisect arguments which seems like a problem in shell because of the way >> function arguments are handled. > > I agree that it is obscure. That is why I would suggest to fix it during > the conversion. Using 'new_term' and 'orig_term' (or something similar) > would make much more sense. > > Another good idea would be to include the shell code, or at least to > provide a link such as: > > https://github.com/git/git/blob/v2.8.0-rc4/git-bisect.sh#L572-L597 > I will take care about this henceforth. >> The argument handling is kind of hard coded right now because it is not >> really be meant to be used like this and this is just for testing >> purposes whether this new method is as functional as its counter part. >> The shell counter part of the method has been retained for historical >> purposes. > > Still, it would make more sense (both in terms of readability and in terms > of code safety) to introduce and use a function like > > static int one_of(const char *term, ...) > { > va_list matches; > const char *match; > > va_start(matches, term); > while ((match = va_arg(matches, const char *))) > if (!strcmp(term, match)) > return 1; > va_end(matches); > > return 0; > } > >> +static int check_term_format(const char *term, const char *revision, int >> flags); >> + >> +static int check_term_format(const char *term, const char *revision, int >> flag) { > > Since you define the check_term_format() function here, the declaration > above is unnecessary. Let's just delete it. Yes. We could just add functions below this so that it would not create a problem. > >> + if (check_refname_format(term, flag)) >> + die("'%s' is not a valid term", term); >> + >> + if (!strcmp(term, "help") || !strcmp(term, "start") || >> + !strcmp(term, "skip") || !strcmp(term, "next") || >> + !strcmp(term, "reset") || !strcmp(term, "visualize") || >> + !strcmp(term, "replay") || !strcmp(term, "log") || >> + !strcmp(term, "run")) >> + die("can't use the builtin command '%s' as a term", term); > > This would look so much nicer using the one_of() function above. one_of() will definitely make it clean. > Please also note that our coding convention (as can be seen from the > existing code in builtin/*.c) is to indent the condition differently than > the block, either using an extra tab, or by using 4 spaces instead of the > tab. > I >> + if (!strcmp(term, "bad") || !strcmp(term, "new")) >> + if(strcmp(revision, "bad")) >> + die("can't change the meaning of term '%s'", term); >> + >> + if (!strcmp(term, "good") || !strcmp(term, "old")) >> + if (strcmp(revision, "good")) >> + die("can't change the meaning of term '%s'", term); > > These two can be combined. Actually, these *four* can easily be combined: > > if ((one_of(term, "bad", "new", NULL) && strcmp(orig, "bad")) || > (one_of(term, "good", "old", NULL) && strcmp(orig, "good"))) > die("can't change the meaning of term '%s'", term); > >> int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) >> { >> int next_all = 0; >> int no_checkout = 0; >> + const char *term; > > Better use the existing convention: > > int check_term_format = 0; > >> struct option options[] = { >> OPT_BOOL(0, "next-all", &next_all, >> N_("perform 'git bisect next'")), >> OPT_BOOL(0, "no-checkout", &no_checkout, >> N_("update BISECT_HEAD instead of checking out the >> current commit")), >> + OPT_STRING(0, "check-term-format", &term, N_("term"), >> + N_("check the format of the ref")), > > Hmm. The existing code suggests to use OPT_BOOL instead. > >> OPT_END() >> }; >> >> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, >> git_bisect_helper_usage, 0); >> >> + >> + if (term != NULL) { >> + if (argc > 0) > > Here you need to test for a precise argc, not for a range. True. >> + return check_term_format(term, argv[0], 0); >> + else >> + die("no revision provided with check_for_term"); >> + } >> + >> if (!next_all) >> usage_with_options(git_bisect_helper_usage, options); >> >> diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh >> index 5d1cb00..ea237be 100755 >> --- a/git-bisect.sh >> +++ b/git-bisect.sh >> @@ -564,8 +564,8 @@ write_terms () { >> then >> die "$(gettext "please use two different terms")" >> fi >> - check_term_format "$TERM_BAD" bad >> - check_term_format "$TERM_GOOD" good >> + git bisect--helper --check-term-format="$TERM_BAD" bad >> + git bisect--helper --check-term-format="$TERM_GOOD" good > > The existing convention is to make the first argument *not* a value of the > "option", i.e. `--check-term-format "$TERM_BAD"` without an equal sign. Will change this. > Did you also run the test suite after compiling, to verify that the > documented expectations are still met after the conversion? Yes I did run the tests. They produce the same results as they did before. To ease review I will next time include these the output of the tests in the commented section. t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh : http://paste.ubuntu.com/15473728/ t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh : http://paste.ubuntu.com/15473734/ t6041-bisect-submodule.sh : http://paste.ubuntu.com/15473743/ Is there any other test I would need to run? Regards, Pranit Bauva -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
