Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] read-cache & fetch-negotiator: check "enum" values in switch()
From: Taylor Blau <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-21 02:20:19
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:47:17AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Change tweak_untracked_cache() in "read-cache.c" to use a switch() to have the compiler assert that we checked all possible values in the "enum untracked_cache_setting" type, and likewise remove the "default" case in fetch_negotiator_init() in favor of checking for "FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET" and "FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE". As will be discussed in a subsequent we'll only ever have either of
s/subsequent/& patch/ ?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
these set to FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE, FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET and UNTRACKED_CACHE_UNSET within the prepare_repo_settings() function itself. In preparation for fixing that code let's add a BUG() here to mark this as unreachable code. See ad0fb659993 (repo-settings: parse core.untrackedCache, 2019-08-13) for when the "unset" and "keep" handling for core.untrackedCache was consolidated, and aaf633c2ad1 (repo-settings: create feature.experimental setting, 2019-08-13) for the addition of the "default" pattern in "fetch-negotiator.c". Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <redacted> --- fetch-negotiator.c | 4 +++- read-cache.c | 15 ++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)diff --git a/fetch-negotiator.c b/fetch-negotiator.c index 57ed5784e14..237f92b8696 100644 --- a/fetch-negotiator.c +++ b/fetch-negotiator.c@@ -19,8 +19,10 @@ void fetch_negotiator_init(struct repository *r, return; case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_DEFAULT: - default: default_negotiator_init(negotiator); return; + case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_NONE: + case FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET: + BUG("FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET only in prepare_repo_settings()");
I was briefly confused why this BUG message mentioned FETCH_NEGOTIATION_UNSET, since we only support FETCH_NEGOTIATION_DEFAULT here. But then I realized that it said "only in prepare_repo_settings()", and we're in fetch_negotiator_init(). So this makes sense to me. Other than the small typo in the patch message, this looks good to me. Thanks, Taylor