Thread (23 messages) flat view 23 messages, 3 authors, 2016-06-15

Re: [PATCH 02/11] refs.c: change ref_transaction_update() to do error checking and return status

From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:00:50

Hi,

Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
Update ref_transaction_update() do some basic error checking and return
true on error. Update all callers to check ref_transaction_update() for error.
Micronit: nonzero, not true.  (true tends to mean '1' while here we
have the usual error return of -1.  It's kind of annoying that C
doesn't have a nice way to distinguish between the usual int return of
0 for success and the usual bool return of true for success.)

Looks like a good change.  Some tiny nitpicks below.

[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/refs.h
+++ b/refs.h
@@ -237,11 +237,11 @@ void ref_transaction_rollback(struct ref_transaction *transaction);
  * that the reference should have had before the update, or zeros if
  * it must not have existed beforehand.
  */
-void ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
+int ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
The comment above the prototype doesn't tell me:

When should the caller expect ref_transaction_update to return an
error?  What does an error mean: is it always a sign of a bug in the
caller, or can it be due to some other problem?  What guarantees does
the caller have about the state after an error --- is it just "Things
will be in a sane state so you can free resources and exit", or will
the ref_transaction_update() have been essentially a no-op allowing
the caller to continue?

[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/refs.c
+++ b/refs.c
@@ -3327,19 +3327,24 @@ static struct ref_update *add_update(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
 	return update;
 }
 
-void ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
+int ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction *transaction,
 			    const char *refname,
 			    const unsigned char *new_sha1,
 			    const unsigned char *old_sha1,
 			    int flags, int have_old)
 {
-	struct ref_update *update = add_update(transaction, refname);
+	struct ref_update *update;
+
+	if (have_old && !old_sha1)
+		return error("have_old is true but old_sha1 is NULL");
I agree with Michael that the error message should start with "BUG:"
so humans encountering this know to contact the list instead of
blaming themselves.

Returning error instead of die-ing seems like a nice thing that make
it easier to make git valgrind-clean some day.  Others might disagree
with me about whether that's worthwhile, but I think it's a good
change. :)

[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/builtin/update-ref.c
+++ b/builtin/update-ref.c
@@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ static const char *parse_cmd_update(struct strbuf *input, const char *next)
 	if (*next != line_termination)
 		die("update %s: extra input: %s", refname, next);
 
-	ref_transaction_update(transaction, refname, new_sha1, old_sha1,
-			       update_flags, have_old);
+	if (ref_transaction_update(transaction, refname, new_sha1, old_sha1,
+				   update_flags, have_old))
+		die("failed transaction update for %s", refname);
ref_transaction_update already printed an error, but of course that's
no guarantee that bugs in ref_transaction_update will not cause it
to fail without printing a message in the future.  And the extra
context for the error might be nice (but why not print refname in
the message from ref_transaction_update instead?).

Is the plan for ref_transaction_update to be able to fail for
other reasons some day?  What is the contract --- do we need a
human-readable, translatable message here, or is a "this can't
happen" BUG message fine?

I'd be fine with

		die("BUG: failed transa...

or

		/* ref_transaction_update already printed a message */
		exit(128)

with a slight preference for the former, for what it's worth.

[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -286,8 +288,9 @@ static const char *parse_cmd_verify(struct strbuf *input, const char *next)
 	if (*next != line_termination)
 		die("verify %s: extra input: %s", refname, next);
 
-	ref_transaction_update(transaction, refname, new_sha1, old_sha1,
-			       update_flags, have_old);
+	if (ref_transaction_update(transaction, refname, new_sha1, old_sha1,
+			       update_flags, have_old))
+		die("failed transaction update for %s", refname);
Likewise.

Thanks,
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