Re: [PATCH 22/22] sequencer: refactor write_message()
From: Jakub Narębski <hidden>
Date: 2016-09-01 11:10:43
Hello Johannes, W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:06, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
The write_message() function safely writes an strbuf to a file. Sometimes this is inconvenient, though: the text to be written may not be stored in a strbuf, or the strbuf should not be released after writing.
By "this" you mean "using strbuf", isn't it? It is not very obvious, and I think it would be better to say it explicitly.
Let's allow for such use cases by refactoring write_message() to allow for a convenience function write_file_gently(). As some of the upcoming callers of that new function will want to append a newline character, let's just add a flag for that, too.
This paragraph feels a bit convoluted. As I understand it, you refactor "safely writing string to a file" into write_with_lock_file(), and make write_message() use it. The new function makes it easy to create new convenience function write_file_gently(); as some of the upcoming callers of this new function would want to append a newline character, add a flag for it in write_file_gently(), and thus in write_with_lock_file(). Isn't it better / easier to understand?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <redacted> --- sequencer.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c index 5efed2e..f5b5e5e 100644 --- a/sequencer.c +++ b/sequencer.c@@ -239,22 +239,37 @@ static void print_advice(int show_hint, struct replay_opts *opts) } } -static int write_message(struct strbuf *msgbuf, const char *filename) +static int write_with_lock_file(const char *filename, + const void *buf, size_t len, int append_eol) { static struct lock_file msg_file; int msg_fd = hold_lock_file_for_update(&msg_file, filename, 0); if (msg_fd < 0) return error_errno(_("Could not lock '%s'"), filename); - if (write_in_full(msg_fd, msgbuf->buf, msgbuf->len) < 0) + if (write_in_full(msg_fd, buf, len) < 0) return error_errno(_("Could not write to %s"), filename);
You could have, for consistency, add quotes around filename (see previous
error_errno callsite), *while at it*:
return error_errno(_("Could not write to '%s'"), filename);
- strbuf_release(msgbuf);
+ if (append_eol && write(msg_fd, "\n", 1) < 0)
+ return error_errno(_("Could not write eol to %s"), filename);
Same here, and it wouldn't even be 'while at it'
+ return error_errno(_("Could not write eol to '%s'"), filename);
if (commit_lock_file(&msg_file) < 0)
return error(_("Error wrapping up %s."), filename);
Another "while at it"... though the one that can be safely postponed
(well, the make message easier to understand part, not the quote
filename part):
return error(_("Error wrapping up writing to '%s'."), filename);
return 0;
}
+static int write_message(struct strbuf *msgbuf, const char *filename)
+{
+ int res = write_with_lock_file(filename, msgbuf->buf, msgbuf->len, 0);
+ strbuf_release(msgbuf);
+ return res;
+}Nice.
+
+static int write_file_gently(const char *filename,
+ const char *text, int append_eol)
+{
+ return write_with_lock_file(filename, text, strlen(text), append_eol);
+}Nice. And it is static function, so we don't need to come up with a better function name (to describe its function better).
+ /* * Reads a file that was presumably written by a shell script, i.e. * with an end-of-line marker that needs to be stripped.
And thus we got to the last patch in this series. I have skipped patches that already got reviewed; are there some that you would like to have second review of? Is there patch series that needs to be applied earlier that needs a review? P.S. I'll try to respond to your comments later today. Regards, -- Jakub Narębski