Re: [PATCHv10 01/10] receive-pack.c: shorten the execute_commands loop over all commands

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stefan Beller wrote:

>>> --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
>>> +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
>> [...]
>>> @@ -1077,27 +1100,15 @@ static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
>> [...]
>>> +     if (shallow_update)
>>> +             assure_connectivity_checked(commands, si);
>>
>> Looking at this code alone, it seems like assure_connectivity_checked()
>> is going to ensure that connectivity was checked, so that I can assume
>> connectivity going forward.  But the opposite is true --- it is a
>> safety check that prints a warning and doesn't affect what I can
>> assume.
>
> I disagree on that. Combined with the next patch (s/error/die/) we can assume
> that the the connectivity is there as if it is not, git is dead.
>
> This is why I choose the word assure.

If this patch depends on the next one, would it make sense to put them
in the opposite order?

>> The factored-out function fails in what it is meant to do, which is to
>> save the reader of execute_commands from having to look at the
>> implementation of the parts they are not interested in.
>>
>> Would something like warn_if_skipped_connectivity_check() make sense?
>
> The next patch would then change this to die_if_... ?
> I'd be ok with that, but in your original email you would still have the last
> die(...) in the execute_command function which I dislike.
> So what about:
>
> if (shallow_update)
>        (warn|die)_on_skipped_connectivity_check()
>
> ?

My personal preference would be to refactor the preceding code to make
the check unnecessary.

But aside from that, anything that makes the code clearer is fine with
me.  I find ..._if_... clearer than ..._on_... here because it seems
more obvious that it is not an expected condition (i.e., it's a kind
of abbreviation for

	warn_if_skipped_connectivity_check_which_should_never_happen()

) but that's a more minor detail.  An alternative way to make the code
clearer would be to use a comment.

Thanks,
Jonathan