| Message ID | 20191104095923.116086-1-gitter.spiros@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:59:21AM +0000, Elia Pinto wrote: > Fix the LGTM warning of the rule that finds uses of the assignment What is an "LGTM warning"? I think including the actual compiler warning in the commit message would be great. > operator = in places where the equality operator == would > make more sense. > > Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> > --- > ident.c | 13 ++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c > index e666ee4e59..07f2f03b0a 100644 > --- a/ident.c > +++ b/ident.c > @@ -172,12 +172,15 @@ const char *ident_default_email(void) > strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > - } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { > - strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > - free((char *)email); > - } else > - copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > + } else { > + email = query_user_email(); > + if (email && email[0]) { > + strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > + free((char *)email); > + } else > + copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > &git_default_email, &default_email_is_bogus); > + } > strbuf_trim(&git_default_email); > } > return git_default_email.buf; > -- > 2.24.0.rc0.467.g566ccdd3e4.dirty >
Il giorno lun 4 nov 2019 alle ore 11:26 SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:59:21AM +0000, Elia Pinto wrote: > > Fix the LGTM warning of the rule that finds uses of the assignment > > What is an "LGTM warning"? > > I think including the actual compiler warning in the commit message > would be great. Yes indeed. I thought I did it, do you think i can do better? Thanks https://lgtm.com/rules/2158670641/ > > > operator = in places where the equality operator == would > > make more sense. > > > > Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> > > --- > > ident.c | 13 ++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c > > index e666ee4e59..07f2f03b0a 100644 > > --- a/ident.c > > +++ b/ident.c > > @@ -172,12 +172,15 @@ const char *ident_default_email(void) > > strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > > committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > > author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > > - } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { > > - strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > > - free((char *)email); > > - } else > > - copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > > + } else { > > + email = query_user_email(); > > + if (email && email[0]) { > > + strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > > + free((char *)email); > > + } else > > + copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > > &git_default_email, &default_email_is_bogus); > > + } > > strbuf_trim(&git_default_email); > > } > > return git_default_email.buf; > > -- > > 2.24.0.rc0.467.g566ccdd3e4.dirty > >
Hi Elia On 04/11/2019 13:55, Elia Pinto wrote: > Il giorno lun 4 nov 2019 alle ore 11:26 SZEDER Gábor > <szeder.dev@gmail.com> ha scritto: >> >> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:59:21AM +0000, Elia Pinto wrote: >>> Fix the LGTM warning of the rule that finds uses of the assignment >> >> What is an "LGTM warning"? >> >> I think including the actual compiler warning in the commit message >> would be great. > Yes indeed. I thought I did it, do you think i can do better? Thanks > > https://lgtm.com/rules/2158670641/ It would have been helpful to explain that LGTM was a static analyser for those of us who did not know. As far the patch is concerned I'm not convinced it is an improvement. There are loads of places where git uses this pattern ("git grep 'if (([^=)]*=[^)]*)' | wc" shows 212). So long as the assignment is inside its own set of parentheses it's safe and gcc will warn if the parentheses are missing. Best Wishes Phillip >> >>> operator = in places where the equality operator == would >>> make more sense. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> ident.c | 13 ++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c >>> index e666ee4e59..07f2f03b0a 100644 >>> --- a/ident.c >>> +++ b/ident.c >>> @@ -172,12 +172,15 @@ const char *ident_default_email(void) >>> strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); >>> committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; >>> author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; >>> - } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { >>> - strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); >>> - free((char *)email); >>> - } else >>> - copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), >>> + } else { >>> + email = query_user_email(); >>> + if (email && email[0]) { >>> + strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); >>> + free((char *)email); >>> + } else >>> + copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), >>> &git_default_email, &default_email_is_bogus); >>> + } >>> strbuf_trim(&git_default_email); >>> } >>> return git_default_email.buf; >>> -- >>> 2.24.0.rc0.467.g566ccdd3e4.dirty >>>
Il giorno lun 4 nov 2019 alle ore 16:11 Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > Hi Elia > > On 04/11/2019 13:55, Elia Pinto wrote: > > Il giorno lun 4 nov 2019 alle ore 11:26 SZEDER Gábor > > <szeder.dev@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:59:21AM +0000, Elia Pinto wrote: > >>> Fix the LGTM warning of the rule that finds uses of the assignment > >> > >> What is an "LGTM warning"? > >> > >> I think including the actual compiler warning in the commit message > >> would be great. > > Yes indeed. I thought I did it, do you think i can do better? Thanks > > > > https://lgtm.com/rules/2158670641/ > > It would have been helpful to explain that LGTM was a static analyser > for those of us who did not know. As far the patch is concerned I'm not > convinced it is an improvement. There are loads of places where git uses > this pattern ("git grep 'if (([^=)]*=[^)]*)' | wc" shows 212). So long > as the assignment is inside its own set of parentheses it's safe and gcc > will warn if the parentheses are missing. > LGTM only expresses a warning (actually it signals a possible error) that refers directly to this https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/481.html. On which we can hardly disagree, beyond the authority of the source. The reason LGTM only identifies this as an error, and not the various apparently analogous cases in the code I don't know, but it would certainly be interesting to find out. Thanks for the review > Best Wishes > > Phillip > > >> > >>> operator = in places where the equality operator == would > >>> make more sense. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> > >>> --- > >>> ident.c | 13 ++++++++----- > >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c > >>> index e666ee4e59..07f2f03b0a 100644 > >>> --- a/ident.c > >>> +++ b/ident.c > >>> @@ -172,12 +172,15 @@ const char *ident_default_email(void) > >>> strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > >>> committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > >>> author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > >>> - } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { > >>> - strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > >>> - free((char *)email); > >>> - } else > >>> - copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > >>> + } else { > >>> + email = query_user_email(); > >>> + if (email && email[0]) { > >>> + strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > >>> + free((char *)email); > >>> + } else > >>> + copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > >>> &git_default_email, &default_email_is_bogus); > >>> + } > >>> strbuf_trim(&git_default_email); > >>> } > >>> return git_default_email.buf; > >>> -- > >>> 2.24.0.rc0.467.g566ccdd3e4.dirty > >>>
Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> writes: Did I miss the first 29 patches (with what I see in this patch, I do not know if I want to see them immediately, though ;-))? > Fix the LGTM warning of the rule that finds uses of the assignment > operator = in places where the equality operator == would > make more sense. I know you did not mean that existing } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { better reads if it were written like so: } else if ((email == query_user_email()) && email[0]) { but that is the only way how that sentence can be read (at least to me) without looking at what the patch actually does. As "email" has already been assigned to at this point in the codeflow, I agree that, to an eye that does not (and is not willing to spend cycles to) understand what the code is doing, the latter do look more natural: "If the value of the variable is the same as the return value of the query_user_email() function, and ...". And if "email" were a simpler arithmetic type it would have been even more (iow, it is clear "email" is a character string from "&& email[0]", so it is unlikely that "email == que()" is what the user intended). So I am somewhat sympathetic to the "warnings" here, but not all that much, especially if squelching makes the codeflow harder to follow by introducing otherwise unnecessary nesting levels (like this patch did). I suspect that it might be possible to futher restructure the code in such a way that we do not have to do an assignment in a conditional without making the code deeply nested, and that may perhaps be worth doing. But the thing is, assignment in a cascading conditional is so useful in avoiding pointless nesting of the code (imagine a reverse patch of this one---which is easy to sell as cleaning-up and streamlining the code). So, I dunno. > Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> > --- > ident.c | 13 ++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c > index e666ee4e59..07f2f03b0a 100644 > --- a/ident.c > +++ b/ident.c > @@ -172,12 +172,15 @@ const char *ident_default_email(void) > strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > - } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { > - strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > - free((char *)email); > - } else > - copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > + } else { > + email = query_user_email(); > + if (email && email[0]) { > + strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > + free((char *)email); > + } else > + copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > &git_default_email, &default_email_is_bogus); > + } > strbuf_trim(&git_default_email); > } > return git_default_email.buf;
Hi, On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> writes: > > Did I miss the first 29 patches (with what I see in this patch, I > do not know if I want to see them immediately, though ;-))? > > > Fix the LGTM warning of the rule that finds uses of the assignment > > operator = in places where the equality operator == would > > make more sense. > > I know you did not mean that existing > > } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { > > better reads if it were written like so: > > } else if ((email == query_user_email()) && email[0]) { > > but that is the only way how that sentence can be read (at least to > me) without looking at what the patch actually does. > > As "email" has already been assigned to at this point in the > codeflow, I agree that, to an eye that does not (and is not willing > to spend cycles to) understand what the code is doing, the latter do > look more natural: "If the value of the variable is the same as the > return value of the query_user_email() function, and ...". And if > "email" were a simpler arithmetic type it would have been even more > (iow, it is clear "email" is a character string from "&& email[0]", > so it is unlikely that "email == que()" is what the user intended). > > So I am somewhat sympathetic to the "warnings" here, but not all > that much, especially if squelching makes the codeflow harder to > follow by introducing otherwise unnecessary nesting levels (like > this patch did). I suspect that it might be possible to futher > restructure the code in such a way that we do not have to do an > assignment in a conditional without making the code deeply nested, > and that may perhaps be worth doing. > > But the thing is, assignment in a cascading conditional is so useful > in avoiding pointless nesting of the code (imagine a reverse patch > of this one---which is easy to sell as cleaning-up and streamlining > the code). > > So, I dunno. For what it's worth, my reaction was exactly the same: I understand how some developers might deem the assignment inside an `if ()` condition undesirable, in Git's context I do strongly prefer the current code over the version proposed in this patch. Thanks, Johannes > > > Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> > > --- > > ident.c | 13 ++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c > > index e666ee4e59..07f2f03b0a 100644 > > --- a/ident.c > > +++ b/ident.c > > @@ -172,12 +172,15 @@ const char *ident_default_email(void) > > strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > > committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > > author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; > > - } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { > > - strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > > - free((char *)email); > > - } else > > - copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > > + } else { > > + email = query_user_email(); > > + if (email && email[0]) { > > + strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); > > + free((char *)email); > > + } else > > + copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), > > &git_default_email, &default_email_is_bogus); > > + } > > strbuf_trim(&git_default_email); > > } > > return git_default_email.buf; >
diff --git a/ident.c b/ident.c index e666ee4e59..07f2f03b0a 100644 --- a/ident.c +++ b/ident.c @@ -172,12 +172,15 @@ const char *ident_default_email(void) strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); committer_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; author_ident_explicitly_given |= IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN; - } else if ((email = query_user_email()) && email[0]) { - strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); - free((char *)email); - } else - copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), + } else { + email = query_user_email(); + if (email && email[0]) { + strbuf_addstr(&git_default_email, email); + free((char *)email); + } else + copy_email(xgetpwuid_self(&default_email_is_bogus), &git_default_email, &default_email_is_bogus); + } strbuf_trim(&git_default_email); } return git_default_email.buf;
Fix the LGTM warning of the rule that finds uses of the assignment operator = in places where the equality operator == would make more sense. Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> --- ident.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)