Re: [PATCH] builtin/receive-pack.c: use parse_options API

Hi,

Thanks for your patch.

"Sidhant Sharma [:tk]" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This patch makes receive-pack use the parse_options API,

We usually avoid saying "this patch" and use imperative tone: talk to
your patch and give it orders like "Make receive-pack use the
parse_options API ...". Or just skip that part which is already in the
title.

quoted

@@ -45,12 +48,12 @@ static int unpack_limit = 100;
 static int report_status;
 static int use_sideband;
 static int use_atomic;
-static int quiet;
+static int quiet = 0;

static int are already initialized to 0, you don't need this explicit "=
0". In the codebase of Git, we prever omiting the initialization.

quoted

+	struct option options[] = {
+		OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("quiet")),
+		OPT_HIDDEN_BOOL(0, "stateless-rpc", &stateless_rpc, NULL),
+		OPT_HIDDEN_BOOL(0, "advertise-refs", &advertise_refs, NULL),
+		/* Hidden OPT_BOOL option */
+		{
+			OPTION_SET_INT, 0, "reject-thin-pack-for-testing", &fix_thin, NULL,
+			NULL, PARSE_OPT_NOARG | PARSE_OPT_HIDDEN, NULL, 0,
+		},

After seeing the patch, I think the code would be clearer by using
something like

	OPT_HIDDEN_BOOL(0, "reject-thin-pack-for-testing", &reject_thin, NULL)

and then use !reject_thin where the patch was using fix_thin. Turns 5
lines into one here, and you just pay a ! later in terms of readability.

OK, will correct the above points.

quoted

 	packet_trace_identity("receive-pack");

-	argv++;
-	for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
-		const char *arg = *argv++;
+	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, receive_pack_usage, 0);

-		if (*arg == '-') {
-			if (!strcmp(arg, "--quiet")) {
-				quiet = 1;
-				continue;
-			}
+	if (argc > 1)
+		usage_msg_opt(_("Too many arguments."), receive_pack_usage, options);
+	if (argc == 0)
+		usage_msg_opt(_("You must specify a directory."), receive_pack_usage, options);

Before that, the loop was ensuring that service_dir was assigned once
and only once, and now you check that you have one non-option arg and
assign it unconditionally:

quoted

+	service_dir = argv[0];

... so isn't this "if" dead code:

quoted

 	if (!service_dir)
-		usage(receive_pack_usage);
+		usage_with_options(receive_pack_usage, options);

?

Yes, I just realized that is dead code (sorry). Removing the 'if' statement would correct that? Also, is the unconditional assignment to service_dir correct in this case, or should some other test condition be added?

Another thing I'd like to ask is when I prepare the next patch, should it be sent as reply in this thread, or as a new thread?



Thanks and regards,
Sidhant Sharma  [:tk]