Re: [PATCH 09/29] bisect: libify `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad` and its dependents

From: "Miriam R." <mirucam@gmail.com>
To: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
	git <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/29] bisect: libify `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad` and its dependents
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:00:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN7CjDAb4AxZQ-dU0GBibXhWCwxRDqbbkVaKuNfVJ+8LASr8fQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD0MO9wEc=ErEAFm4kSabLKUTp1a5VTPxgDS2yqt+rxXag@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

El mar., 21 ene. 2020 a las 7:59, Christian Couder
(<christian.couder@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:20 PM Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, Miriam Rubio wrote:
>
> > > @@ -876,8 +877,15 @@ static void check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(struct repository *r,
> > >       int fd, rev_nr, res = 0;
> > >       struct commit **rev;
> > >
> > > -     if (!current_bad_oid)
> > > -             die(_("a %s revision is needed"), term_bad);
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * We don't want to clean the bisection state
> > > +      * as we need to get back to where we started
> > > +      * by using `git bisect reset`.
> > > +      */
> > > +     if (!current_bad_oid) {
> > > +             res = error(_("a %s revision is needed"), term_bad);
> > > +             goto done;
> > > +     }
> >
> > Why not just return here? Ah, there is a `filename` that was allocated...
> > it is too bad that we have a mailing-list based review, as the hunk
> > context simply cannot be extended in a mail.
> >
> > Personally, I think it would be nicer to split the definition of
> > `filename` from its declaration and move it _after_ this conditional code,
> > so that we can `return` right away.
>
> Yeah, I agree.
Ok. Noted.
>
> > However, there is a more pressing issue than that: `die()` exits with exit
> > code 128, so in keeping with the idea to hand down negative exit codes as
> > return values, should we not assign `res = -128` here?
>
> I think it has been ok when converting git-bisect.sh to C to just
> convert `die(...)` into `return error(...)`.
>
> > >       /* Check if file BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK exists. */
> > >       if (!stat(filename, &st) && S_ISREG(st.st_mode))
> > > @@ -893,18 +901,20 @@ static void check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad(struct repository *r,
> > >       if (check_ancestors(r, rev_nr, rev, prefix))
> > >               res = check_merge_bases(rev_nr, rev, no_checkout);
> > >       free(rev);
> > > -     if(res)
> > > -             exit(res == -11 ? 0 : -res);
> > > -
> > > -     /* Create file BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK. */
> > > -     fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0600);
> > > -     if (fd < 0)
> > > -             warning_errno(_("could not create file '%s'"),
> > > -                           filename);
> > > -     else
> > > -             close(fd);
> > > +
> > > +     if (!res)
> > > +     {
> >
> > We usually put the `{` on the same line as the `if` condition (like you
> > did in the `if (!current_bad_oid)` line above.
Ok. I will change that.
> >
> > The rest looks reasonable. Thank you,
Great! Thank you for your review!

>
> Thank you for your review,
> Christian.