Hi Kuba,
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> 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.
Rephrased.
> > 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?
I don't know, but I took it.
> > 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);
Done.
> > - 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'
Done.
> + 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);
As I inherited this message, I'll keep it.
> 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?
Thank you for your review!
Dscho
