pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -274,17 +414,22 @@ static rpmRC buildSpec(BTA_t buildArgs, rpmSpec spec,
> int what)
exit:
free(cookie);
spec->rootDir = NULL;
- if (rc != RPMRC_OK && rpmlogGetNrecs() > 0) {
+ if (rc != RPMRC_OK && rc != RPMRC_MISSINGBUILDREQUIRES &&
+ rpmlogGetNrecs() > 0) {
rpmlog(RPMLOG_NOTICE, _("\n\nRPM build errors:\n"));
The if-condition continues at the same indentation level as the actual if-block
itself, so its really easy to mistake the rpmlogGetNrecs() to be part of the
if-block rather than the condition. This is a recurring theme in the patches,
please fix all such cases. Multiple options how to deal with it:
a) indent the continued condition to clearly deeper level (iirc this is what
```indent -kr``` does)
b) find a way to make the condition fit on one line, using helper variables and
such as necessary
c) put the opening curly brace on a line of its own - its a kind of style
violation but it does make the construct obvious
With meaningful names for helper variables, b) typically produces by the most
readable code.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/593#pullrequestreview-233993450_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
