Re: [PATCH v7 4/6] verify-tag: prepare verify_tag for libification

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

I'd have probably called this "display_name", but then I suppose it
suffers the same issue Junio mentioned previously about it sounding
like a boolean. Anyhow, as long as Junio is happy with it, that's what
matters.

No ;-) I am just trying to help people come up with patches in a
better shape.  Somehow "display name" does not bother me as much as
"report name" did.  name_to_report may be a mouthful, but it conveys
what it is clearly, and I think it is good enough.

This version of the patch is nicely improved. One nit below.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Santiago Torres <redacted>
---

diff --git a/builtin/verify-tag.c b/builtin/verify-tag.c

@@ -80,6 +83,8 @@ int cmd_verify_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 {
        int i = 1, verbose = 0, had_error = 0;
        unsigned flags = 0;
+       unsigned char sha1[20];
+       const char *name;

Mentioned previously[1]: These two declarations could be moved inside
the while-loop scope (below).

[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291813

Yup.

quoted

        const struct option verify_tag_options[] = {
                OPT__VERBOSE(&verbose, N_("print tag contents")),
                OPT_BIT(0, "raw", &flags, N_("print raw gpg status output"), GPG_VERIFY_RAW),

@@ -96,8 +101,12 @@ int cmd_verify_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
        if (verbose)
                flags |= GPG_VERIFY_VERBOSE;

-       while (i < argc)
-               if (verify_tag(argv[i++], flags))
+       while (i < argc) {
+               name = argv[i++];
+               if (get_sha1(name, sha1))
+                       had_error = !!error("tag '%s' not found.", name);
+               else if (verify_tag(sha1, name, flags))
                        had_error = 1;
+       }
        return had_error;
 }
--

2.8.0