From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83587C4332F for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 22:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229454AbiKYWsE (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 17:48:04 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57322 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229869AbiKYWsD (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 17:48:03 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BC5A1A22E for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id f7so8089410edc.6 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:48:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent:references:date :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BXx+5ctbQhhQvzuU4iqRIe1JKsDTiaKb+1/LGbvI/v0=; b=dzphSGW9otjpB2BDemehxJODoobv3kqIZRjhciQyhsFeJOSbloNWeStbwz6/yJhrmj x58i7Or5S3XyZs5raWqVrbylBWG17KkAGu7E6KsPoeNC/iOQlKSmtLNci+TfIDsTrg6d /WlUzhZOSUYDG6HT6v8d20IS9QQWMO7E0+b8/qWyw4KxAl0DthTwLawQ5A9aImGq4dia 34vkzYr6C8LxyLLB0heNH9HvdC0Wl1z77/MIFuG5LdXOoLisjZlORCKf5cM2qCDWr10i YYVT/QnxCV6udQBdoVIren6XmBYMnuggXD/bz8PIXeHZC6UFPonYQ8wVe3zeggziB1lP DarQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent:references:date :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BXx+5ctbQhhQvzuU4iqRIe1JKsDTiaKb+1/LGbvI/v0=; b=pr5yf1fTMArDZ2H8KWS/arBW//vEyTO0mCTkymcvVSHkgP8zIQw28S+qf9HlzKJobn D/vtRvE/iarzsR3Ho4+xe0YBBWs6yUfSUWKD3zC+OSRltaxlOUzG1qN5U/+UNYN11n1Y i3zTtDRbumAdnJdVhE6yLwCJN0OjpsRMCfmVbJuHK+Lnj0MjJc0gxfdcHbjlpIiwag3Y VJPtvZhZwJMCdzErv6nhCf6jGKDzciWDt7KCSfdLwbY5s9P96xNatgq7GuHxiRDgS5ua PVqzzpHuKQOz5ejAeQqxE0uvn02jgpsPQ8WSMxNR609hExy1gX8VDadNSw3/tHankjRr f85w== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkGQV/6VSkRurdDXufq36SaRT7e7llBJpmVmL+n+16Ue6THlqFU Efe6rs1UcdKThROZcRH7DbYd1DFEEgQQiDBh X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7nRgWT6q8rikTXH9DL4uup0Ja720Am2GjSuv6Q/rb+1pCa7BGVHI2DTADhWhCUTm/nbFcncA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:181:b0:461:ea0c:e151 with SMTP id r1-20020a056402018100b00461ea0ce151mr23099394edv.376.1669416480240; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:48:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmgdl ([213.143.127.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id nb12-20020a1709071c8c00b0078df3b4464fsm2100050ejc.19.2022.11.25.14.47.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1oyhUD-000bfb-2e; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 23:47:57 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Sean Allred via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Sean Allred , Sean Allred Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] var: do not print usage() with a correct invocation Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 23:45:04 +0100 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.9.0 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <221125.86tu2mmz1e.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 25 2022, Sean Allred via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Sean Allred > > Before, git-var could print usage() even if the command was invoked > correctly with a variable defined in git_vars -- provided that its > read() function returned NULL. > > Now, we only print usage() only if it was called with a logical "we only ... only if", drop/combine some "only"? > variable that wasn't defined -- regardless of read(). > > Since we now know the variable is valid when we call read_var(), we > can avoid printing usage() here (and exiting with code 129) and > instead exit quietly with code 1. While exiting with a different code > can be a breaking change, it's far better than changing the exit > status more generally from 'failure' to 'success'. I honestly don't still don't grok what was different here before/after, whatever we are now/should be doing here, a test as part of this change asserting the new behavior would be really useful. > -static const char *read_var(const char *var) > +static const struct git_var *get_git_var(const char *var) > { > struct git_var *ptr; > - const char *val; > - val = NULL; > for (ptr = git_vars; ptr->read; ptr++) { > if (strcmp(var, ptr->name) == 0) { > - val = ptr->read(IDENT_STRICT); > - break; > + return ptr; > } > { > + const struct git_var *git_var = NULL; This assignment to "NULL" can be dropped, i.e.... > const char *val = NULL; > if (argc != 2) > usage(var_usage); > @@ -91,10 +89,15 @@ int cmd_var(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > return 0; > } > git_config(git_default_config, NULL); > - val = read_var(argv[1]); > - if (!val) > + > + git_var = get_git_var(argv[1]); ...we first assign to it here, and if we use it uninit'd before the compiler will tell us.