Re: [PATCH] git-credential-netrc: fix uninitialized warning

3 messages, 3 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH] git-credential-netrc: fix uninitialized warning

From: Ted Zlatanov <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:58:57

On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:41:47 -0700 Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] wrote: 

JN> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
quoted
Simple patch to avoid unitialized warning and log what we'll do.
JN> Sign-off?

I didn't realize it was a requirement, must I?

JN> [...]
quoted
--- a/contrib/credential/netrc/git-credential-netrc
+++ b/contrib/credential/netrc/git-credential-netrc
@@ -369,7 +369,10 @@ sub find_netrc_entry {
{
my $entry_text = join ', ', map { "$_=$entry->{$_}" } keys %$entry;
foreach my $check (sort keys %$query) {
-			if (defined $query->{$check}) {
+			if (!defined $entry->{$check}) {
+			       log_debug("OK: entry has no $check token, so any value satisfies check $check");
+			}
+			elsif (defined $query->{$check}) {
JN> Style: elsewhere this file seems to use cuddled elses:

JN> 	} elsif (...) {

Ah, thanks, I missed that.

JN> Or more simply, would it make sense to wrap both 'defined' checks into
JN> a single "if", like so?

JN> 		if (defined $entry->{$check} && defined $query->{$check}) {
JN> 			...
JN> 		} else {
JN> 			log_debug(...);
JN> 		}

I prefer the explicit version because we can issue a more precise
log_debug message.

Ted

Re: [PATCH] git-credential-netrc: fix uninitialized warning

From: Stefan Beller <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:58:57

On 10/08/2013 09:55 PM, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
JN> Sign-off?

I didn't realize it was a requirement, must I?
Yes, this is a requirement. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches
to read what signing off actually means here.

Stefan

Re: [PATCH] git-credential-netrc: fix uninitialized warning

From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:58:57

Ted Zlatanov wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:41:47 -0700 Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] wrote: 
JN> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
quoted
quoted
Simple patch to avoid unitialized warning and log what we'll do.
JN> Sign-off?

I didn't realize it was a requirement, must I?
See Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section '(5) Sign your work'
for what this means.

If you just forgot to sign off, that's fine and I can forge it or go
without.  If you are unable to sign off because you don't have the
right to submit the change under an open source license, I'd be a bit
worried going forward.

[...]
JN> Or more simply, would it make sense to wrap both 'defined' checks into
JN> a single "if", like so?

JN> 		if (defined $entry->{$check} && defined $query->{$check}) {
JN> 			...
JN> 		} else {
JN> 			log_debug(...);
JN> 		}

I prefer the explicit version because we can issue a more precise
log_debug message.
That's fine with me.

After this patch, the code looks like

	if (!defined $entry->{$check}) {
		log_debug(...);
	} elsif (defined $query->{$check}) {
		...
	} else {
		log_debug(...);
	}

As a small nit, wouldn't it be more readable with the two !defined()
cases together?

	if (!defined $entry->{$check}) {
		...
	} elsif (!defined $query->{$check}) {
		...
	} else {
		...
	}

Thanks again.
Jonathan
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help