On (13/10/15 12:36), Pavel Reichl wrote: > > >On 10/13/2015 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>>On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>>>On (12/10/15 14:06), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>>>>>On (12/10/15 13:05), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On 10/12/2015 07:32 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On (11/10/15 23:11), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>while messing around with some code analyses tool I noticed that >>>>>>>>>>>some header files are not including directly header files which they >>>>>>>>>>>use and thus are dependent on being included in particular order. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Please see simple patch attached that fixes some of such files (but >>>>>>>>>>>definitely not all). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>From 12c273af1c8ffe727efc526c9e993240904bcbf1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 >>>>>>>>>>>2001 >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pavel Reichl <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:29:44 +0200 >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [PATCH 1/4] SDAP: add missing header files >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h | 4 ++++ >>>>>>>>>>>src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h | 6 ++++++ >>>>>>>>>>>src/providers/ldap/sdap_autofs.h | 6 ++++++ >>>>>>>>>>>src/providers/ldap/sdap_id_op.h | 4 ++++ >>>>>>>>>>>src/providers/ldap/sdap_sudo.h | 6 ++++++ >>>>>>>>>>>src/providers/ldap/sdap_users.h | 4 ++++ >>>>>>>>>>>6 files changed, 30 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h >>>>>>>>>>>b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h >>>>>>>>>>>index >>>>>>>>>>>5fbddd7087dc65ab8bd1df5fb57492d2fc26d0bb..1848af5de19796c8287117b9afe5c6d3e1a248ec >>>>>>>>>>> 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>--- a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h >>>>>>>>>>>+++ b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.h >>>>>>>>>>>@@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>#include "config.h" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>+#include <talloc.h> >>>>>>>>>>>+ >>>>>>>>>>>+#include "util/util.h" >>>>>>>>>>>+ >>>>>>>>>>util.h already includes talloc.h. >>>>>>>>>>Could you explain why do we need to include both of them? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Thanks for noticing that. This seems to be quite common in our code >>>>>>>>>base: >>>>>>>>>git grep -l 'util.h' -- '*.[ch]' | xargs grep 'talloc.h' | wc -l >>>>>>>>>88 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>But it's glitch in the patch nonetheless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>enum pwexpire { >>>>>>>>>>> PWEXPIRE_NONE = 0, >>>>>>>>>>> PWEXPIRE_LDAP_PASSWORD_POLICY, >>>>>>>>>>>diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h >>>>>>>>>>>b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h >>>>>>>>>>>index >>>>>>>>>>>2da38f988913fa0d6f252697925e50e05eb794a6..7d4ff82c5e003ffbd14aca76f321a8a0fc41b3d6 >>>>>>>>>>> 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>--- a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h >>>>>>>>>>>+++ b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_enum.h >>>>>>>>>>>@@ -26,6 +26,12 @@ >>>>>>>>>>>#ifndef _SDAP_ASYNC_ENUM_H_ >>>>>>>>>>>#define _SDAP_ASYNC_ENUM_H_ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>+#include "config.h" >>>>>>>>>>>+ >>>>>>>>>>>+#include <talloc.h> >>>>>>>>>>>+ >>>>>>>>>>>+#include "util/util.h" >>>>>>>>>>>+ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>util.h already includes config.h and talloc.h. >>>>>>>>>>Could you explain why we need to include all mentioned header files? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Same as above. Thanks for noticing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>git grep -l 'util.h' -- '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -l 'talloc.h' | xargs >>>>>>>>>grep 'config.h' | wc -l >>>>>>>>>23 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Please see updated patch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm sorry but I still miss an explanation why do we need to include >>>>>>>>these >>>>>>>>header files. You just updated patches but the explanation is neither >>>>>>>>in mail >>>>>>>>nor in commit message. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>LS >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In first mail I wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I noticed that some header files are not including directly header >>>>>>>>>>> files which they use and thus are dependent on being included in >>>>>>>>>>> particular order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If we have header file A that uses declarations from other header file B >>>>>>>and >>>>>>>B is not directly included from A then compilation of source file that >>>>>>>includes header file A will fail unless header file B is included before >>>>>>>header A. This is not desired behavior. I don't think this is a big >>>>>>>problem >>>>>>>and I don't think we should spent time actively fixing this. Still I hit >>>>>>>this >>>>>>>problem and I fixed it in the files that failed for me. I don't see any >>>>>>>reason why not to merge such improvements. Do you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not stupid I know why we need to include missing header file. >>>>>I'm sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention. >>>>> >>>>>>But it's not cleaner which header file need to be included and why? >>>>> >>>>>OK, I'll add explanation to commit messages. >>>>>> >>>>>>So could you be more concreate? >>>>>> >>>>>>e.g.: We need to include talloc.h because talloc memory context are used >>>>>>in >>>>>>header file. >>>>>> >>>>>>BTW the main problem with including util.h is that include many header >>>>>>files, >>>>>>which is not necessary in many cases. And header files should not include >>>>>>unnecessary header files. It significantly slow down compilation on slow >>>>>>processors (arm development boards e.g. raspberry pi, ...) >>>>> >>>>>Yes I agree, so if header file is missing just declaration of errno_t then >>>>>including just 'util/util_errors.h' is fine with you? >>>>> >>>>>BTW should every header file contain as first header file 'config.h'? >>>>> >>>>If it is required then it should be included otherwise no. >>>>ATM we do not have any compilation warnings caused by missing header files. >>>>So could you explain why we need to include them? It would make sense >>> >>>In my first post I wrote that I was playing around with some code analysis >>>tool. It didn't work because header files didn't include necessary header >>>files on their own. In latter discussion We both agreed this is not optimal. >>> >>You didn't mentioned which tool. >>So it cannot be verified. > >If the header file contains errno_t or TALLOC_CTX and no include or forward >declaration what so ever what's there to verify? But OK, I think I see your >point now. I assume I could write a dummy.c and include the offending headers >and show you the compiler errors. > >> >>>>to do it as part of refactoring. >>>>But there are higher priority things which could be done instead. >>> >>>Yes, there are - I already wrote the same myself. This patch was just >>>by-product of my messing around. I decided to share it as I thought it >>>improves SSSD a tiny bit. If you don't think it improves SSSD at all then we >>>can drop it. >>> >>The patch would make sense if we could prevent such problems in future. >>In another words: The tesst would be part of CI script. >>Otherwise such "potential problems" can be created in future. > >Generally the fact that you can't prevent something from happening in future >should not be a block for fixing it now. > It is the same use-case as with trailing whitespace. It's error-prone to rely on reviewer. If something is possible to automate then it should be automated. It does not make a sense to send patches every week which fixes triling whitespaces.
You mentioned that you played with code analysis tool. So you didn't check all files manually. This is exactly the purpose of static analyzers. To do boring stuff instead of people. Could you explain why it connot be incorporated to the our CI script? or does it mean that you do not want to improve code quality of sssd? LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
