Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] am: improve author-script error reporting
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2018-10-25 08:55:57
Phillip Wood [off-list ref] writes:
From: Phillip Wood <redacted> If there are errors in a user edited author-script there was no indication of what was wrong. This commit adds some specific error messages depending on the problem. It also relaxes the requirement that the variables appear in a specific order in the file to match the behavior of 'rebase --interactive'.
That relaxing is sensible; there is no reason to insist that the file we are reading was written by exactly the same writer as we have.
quoted hunk
diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c index b68578bc3f..d42b725273 100644 --- a/builtin/am.c +++ b/builtin/am.c@@ -270,8 +270,11 @@ static int parse_key_value_squoted(char *buf, struct string_list *list) struct string_list_item *item; char *np; char *cp = strchr(buf, '='); - if (!cp) - return -1; + if (!cp) { + np = strchrnul(buf, '\n'); + return error(_("unable to parse '%.*s'"), + (int) (np - buf), buf); + }
We are unable to parse because it is not of KEY='VALUE' form. Is that something worth reporting, e.g. "no key present in '%.*s'"?
quoted hunk
@@ -280,7 +283,8 @@ static int parse_key_value_squoted(char *buf, struct string_list *list) *np = '\0'; cp = sq_dequote(cp); if (!cp) - return -1; + return error(_("unable to dequote value of '%s'"), + item->string);
At this point, item->string is what we earlier found on the left hand side of the '=', i.e. the key. The message makes sense.
quoted hunk
@@ -308,6 +312,7 @@ static int read_author_script(struct am_state *state) struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT; struct string_list kv = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP; int retval = -1; /* assume failure */ + int i, name_i = -2, email_i = -2, date_i = -2, err = 0;
That -2 is somewhat cute. If we find a dup, then it will become -1 so later check for missing field would not trigger.
quoted hunk
@@ -326,14 +331,38 @@ static int read_author_script(struct am_state *state) if (parse_key_value_squoted(buf.buf, &kv)) goto finish; - if (kv.nr != 3 || - strcmp(kv.items[0].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_NAME") || - strcmp(kv.items[1].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL") || - strcmp(kv.items[2].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_DATE")) + for (i = 0; i < kv.nr; i++) { + if (!strcmp(kv.items[i].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_NAME")) { + if (name_i >= 0) + name_i = error(_("'GIT_AUTHOR_NAME' already given")); + else + name_i = i;
However, if you have three instances of GIT_AUTHOR_NAME, then
- the first one makes name_i point at it
- the second one triggers an error and name_i becomes -1
- the third one makes name_i point at it again
And name_i is not -2 so we won't give "missing" error, which is OK,
but we end up having a usable name even though we said we detected
duplicate!
You can probably compare name_i with -2 when detecting the dup to
fix it, i.e.
if (name_i != -2)
name_i = error("found dup");
else
name_i = i;
+ } else if (!strcmp(kv.items[i].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL")) {
+ if (email_i >= 0)
+ email_i = error(_("'GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL' already given"));
+ else
+ email_i = i;
+ } else if (!strcmp(kv.items[i].string, "GIT_AUTHOR_DATE")) {
+ if (date_i >= 0)
+ date_i = error(_("'GIT_AUTHOR_DATE' already given"));
+ else
+ date_i = i;
+ } else {
+ err = error(_("unknown variable '%s'"),
+ kv.items[i].string);
+ }
+ }
+ if (name_i == -2)
+ error(_("missing 'GIT_AUTHOR_NAME'"));
+ if (email_i == -2)
+ error(_("missing 'GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL'"));
+ if (date_i == -2)
+ error(_("missing 'GIT_AUTHOR_DATE'"));
+ if (date_i < 0 || email_i < 0 || date_i < 0 || err)
goto finish;
- state->author_name = kv.items[0].util;
- state->author_email = kv.items[1].util;
- state->author_date = kv.items[2].util;
+ state->author_name = kv.items[name_i].util;
+ state->author_email = kv.items[email_i].util;
+ state->author_date = kv.items[date_i].util;
retval = 0;
finish:
string_list_clear(&kv, !!retval);