On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:37 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
> > The information that is printed for update_submodules in
> > 'submodule--helper update-clone' and consumed by 'git submodule update'
> > is stored as a string per submodule. This made sense at the time of
> > 48308681b07 (git submodule update: have a dedicated helper for cloning,
> > 2016-02-29), but as we want to migrate the rest of the submodule update
> > into C, we're better off having access to the raw information in a helper
> > struct.
>
> The reasoning above makes sense, but I have a few niggles on the
> naming.
>
> * Anything you'd place to keep track of the state is "information",
>so a whole "_information" suffix to the structure name does not
>add much value. We've seen our fair share of (meaningless)
>"_data" suffix used in many places but I think the overly long
>"_information" that is equally meaningless trumps them. I think
>we also have "_info", but if we are not going to have a beter
>name, let's not be original and stick to "_data" like other
>existing codepath. An alternative with more meaningful name is
>of course better, though, but it is not all that much worth to
>spend too many braincycles on it.
agreed.
> * Is the fact that these parameters necessary to help populating
>the submodule repository are sent on a line to external process
>the most important aspect of the submodule_lines[] array? As
In terms of what the submodule--helper does, it is.
It is not the most important aspect in the big picture, or once
we finish the migration to not have shell interpret its output.
>this step is a preparation to migrate out of that line/text
>oriented IPC, I think line-ness is the least important and
>interesting thing to name the variable with.
ok.
> If I were writing this patch, perhaps I'd do
>
> struct update_clone_data *update_clone;
> int update_clone_nr, update_clone_alloc;
>
> following my gut, but since you've been thinking about submodule
> longer than I have, perhaps you can come up with a better name.
That makes sense. We do not need to mention 'submodule' as that
ought to be obvious from the file name already and 'update_clone'
is just enough to describe what we are doing.
Although there is already struct submodule_update_clone, which
would be the better candidate for 'update_clone' and this new
struct would be used as a helper in that struct, so update_clone_data
I'll think of adding a patch to rename that already existing struct
(submodule_update_clone -> update_clone) and renaming
this to update_clone_data.
>
> > @@ -1463,8 +1469,9 @@ struct submodule_update_clone {
> > const char *recursive_prefix;
> > const char *prefix;
> >
> > - /* Machine-readable status lines to be consumed by git-submodule.sh */
> > - struct string_list projectlines;
> > + /* to be consumed by git-submodule.sh */
> > + struct submodule_update_clone_information *submodule_lines;
> > + int submodule_lines_nr; int submodule_lines_alloc;
> >
> > /* If we want to stop as fast as possible and return an error */
> > unsigned quickstop : 1;
> > @@ -1478,7 +1485,7 @@ struct submodule_update_clone {
> > #define SUBMODULE_UPDATE_CLONE_INIT {0, MODULE_LIST_INIT, 0, \
> > SUBMODULE_UPDATE_STRATEGY_INIT, 0, 0, -1, STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP, 0, \
> > NULL, NULL, NULL, \
> > - STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP, 0, NULL, 0, 0}
> > + NULL, 0, 0, 0, NULL, 0, 0, 0}
>
> The structure definition and this macro definition are nearby, so it
> is not crucial, but its probably not a bad idea to switch to C99
> initializers for a thing like this to make it more readable, once
> the code around this area stabilizes back again sufficiently (IOW,
> let's not distract ourselves in the middle of adding a new feature
> like this one).
Are we still in the phase of "test balloon" or do we now accept
C99 initializers all over the code base?
But I agree to defer the conversion for now.
Thanks,
Stefan
