On 2.2.2016 13:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 02/01/2016 02:24 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 1.2.2016 12:11, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 1.2.2016 09:03, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 29.1.2016 15:49, Martin Basti wrote:
On 29.01.2016 15:49, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
Reworded the commits so that they better reflect what's going on
On 01/29/2016 02:49 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
I made some patches based on the Coverity report from 18.1.2016.
NACK, see my previous email
I don't think this deserves 9 patches, 1 would be sufficient enough.
I would rather have it is separate patches as these fixes are largely
related. It will make bisecting easier.
Most of the fixes are cosmetic, which makes them related, and the rest
are small isolated changes, so in reality it would hardly make
bisecting easier and only increase the overhead. In the past we
usually had put such fixes into a single patch and AFAIK nobody
complained so far.
Squeezed the changes into two new patches, then. One for the very
cosmetic changes, one for possible bugs.
1) I think this unreachable return is intentional, as indicated by
- #we shouldn't get here
- return [UNKNOWN_ERROR]
I would use
assert False, "we shouldn't get here"
neither we nor Coverity are confused when we hit the code path one day.
UNKNOWN_ERROR would pop up somewhere else and it will be harder to
why the hell the code behaves as mad. Traceback will clearly indicate
there is a problem with the 'switch'.
Sure, my point is that returning None is no better than returning
Added assert as suggested. There should still be no way of getting to
2) How is this dead code?
- if options.mode == 'validate_pot' or options.mode ==
+ if options.mode in ('validate_pot', 'validate_po'):
- elif options.mode == 'create_test' or 'test_gettext':
+ elif options.mode in ('create_test', 'test_gettext'):
Patch 0014-0015: LGTM
Actually scratch that, patch 0015 breaks correct code.
The dead code appears in the 'else' branch as the latter of these two
conditions always evaluates to True. The first condition change is just
a cosmetic one so that both of the conditions look the same.
Also removed the changes made in patch 0015.
Patch 0016: The original code is in fact correct.
Point taken, removed the change.
Patch 0017: This will break Python 3. The two branches are
performing the same
action, but with different data types.
This might undergo further investigation in the future as there is no
way how "bytes" instance could become an argument of this function (as
suggested). Not even the newest Python 3 patches from pviktori mention
OK. (This is not what Coverity was complaining about, though.)
Patch 0018: LGTM
Patch 0019: IMO the original code is better (None has a __class__
too, you know).
Made it more "Coverity friendly" yet nice enough modification.
Patch 0020: LGTM
It seems that there actually is a check that checks whether the input is
correct. It is called ad-hoc but that might be the test feature.
Therefore just added an assert so that Coverity does not complain.
Patch 0021: Please use the original error messages (there are no
being added to D-Bus, but to certmonger).
Added error messages that reflect the situation better, then.
Could you please mention Coverity in the commit messages, so that it's
clear why are we doing these changes? Otherwise LGTM.
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code