| Message ID | 20200118145318.5177-1-shawarmakarma@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/3] color.c: Refactor color_output to use enums | expand |
Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@gmail.com> writes: > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] color.c: Refactor color_output to use enums Please downcase Refactor; that way this change would not meaninglessly stand out in the "git shortlog --no-merges" output. > Signed-off-by: Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@gmail.com> > --- > color.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) You got help from multiple reviewers on your earlier round and at least the discussion thread would have made it clear what kind of things would help readers understand what design decision was made (e.g. .value is not 0-7 but 30-37, the caller passes "am I talking about the background color?" boolean, there are others) and why this design was chosen (e.g. .value is not 0-7 because we want to add brighter variant later, there would be others that correspond to the "here are the design decisions I made before coming up with this version"). The reviewing is *not* just about explaining your thought to and convincing your reviewers---it is where reviewers help you to explain what your change wanted to do and why it did so to future readers of "git log". The blank before your sign-off means all the times spent gets discarded, which is not exactly encouraging to the reviewers.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:51 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Please downcase Refactor; that way this change would not > meaninglessly stand out in the "git shortlog --no-merges" output. Sure, no problem. > The blank before your sign-off means all the times spent gets > discarded, which is not exactly encouraging to the reviewers. So I should make a better description for the patch? Sure! What should I put? It's kind of hard to get a good description that describes the refactoring without digging into the reasoning behind it, which is in the follow-up patch. What kind of description should I give? How about like this: color.c: refactor color_output arguments color_output() now uses a more descriptive "background" argument instead of "type". Signed-off-by: Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@gmail.com> Suits?
Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:51 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> Please downcase Refactor; that way this change would not >> meaninglessly stand out in the "git shortlog --no-merges" output. > > Sure, no problem. > >> The blank before your sign-off means all the times spent gets >> discarded, which is not exactly encouraging to the reviewers. > > So I should make a better description for the patch? Sure! What > should I put? It's kind of hard to get a good description that > describes the refactoring without digging into the reasoning behind > it, which is in the follow-up patch. What kind of description should > I give? How about like this: > > color.c: refactor color_output arguments > > color_output() now uses a more descriptive "background" argument > instead of "type". > > Signed-off-by: Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@gmail.com> > > Suits? Quite a lot is missing from these two lines what I mentioned as examples in the part you omitted from your quote, I think. - what design decision was made? e.g. how .value is expressed differently from the code before this patch, e.g. how "fore/back" information is passed from the caller differently between the code before and after this patch, etc. - why these design choices are good ones? e.g. making .value 30-37 range instead of 0-7 range and pass 0/10 as offset from the base foreground value when the caller wants to give background color allows us to do X better than the original arrangement? Perhaps there are some other things we discussed in the review thread that may be worth resurrecting, but at least I recall I had trouble understanding why you chose to do things the way the patch did for the above two points. After all, anything that reviewers needed help in their first reading with your explanation to understand is a good candidate [*1*] that needs clarification to help future readers of the "git show" output of the commit resulting from your final version of the patch. Thanks. [Footnote] *1* There of course are cases where a simple explanation results in a reviewer who was initially confused to say "Ah, I misread a word, but your original is good after I re-read it carefully", so not everything a reviewer gets confused necessarily deserves mention in the final version of the log message. But these are good starting points to anticipate confusion by future readers.
diff --git a/color.c b/color.c index ebb222ec33..3b734ccffd 100644 --- a/color.c +++ b/color.c @@ -24,6 +24,13 @@ const char *column_colors_ansi[] = { GIT_COLOR_RESET, }; +enum { + COLOR_BACKGROUND_OFFSET = 10, + COLOR_FOREGROUND_ANSI = 30, + COLOR_FOREGROUND_RGB = 38, + COLOR_FOREGROUND_256 = 38, +}; + /* Ignore the RESET at the end when giving the size */ const int column_colors_ansi_max = ARRAY_SIZE(column_colors_ansi) - 1; @@ -92,7 +99,7 @@ static int parse_color(struct color *out, const char *name, int len) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(color_names); i++) { if (match_word(name, len, color_names[i])) { out->type = COLOR_ANSI; - out->value = i; + out->value = i + COLOR_FOREGROUND_ANSI; return 0; } } @@ -112,7 +119,7 @@ static int parse_color(struct color *out, const char *name, int len) /* Rewrite low numbers as more-portable standard colors. */ } else if (val < 8) { out->type = COLOR_ANSI; - out->value = val; + out->value = val + COLOR_FOREGROUND_ANSI; return 0; } else if (val < 256) { out->type = COLOR_256; @@ -166,23 +173,26 @@ int color_parse(const char *value, char *dst) * already have the ANSI escape code in it. "out" should have enough * space in it to fit any color. */ -static char *color_output(char *out, int len, const struct color *c, char type) +static char *color_output(char *out, int len, const struct color *c, int background) { + int offset = 0; + if (background) { + offset = COLOR_BACKGROUND_OFFSET; + } switch (c->type) { case COLOR_UNSPECIFIED: case COLOR_NORMAL: break; case COLOR_ANSI: - if (len < 2) - BUG("color parsing ran out of space"); - *out++ = type; - *out++ = '0' + c->value; + out += xsnprintf(out, len, "%d", c->value + offset); break; case COLOR_256: - out += xsnprintf(out, len, "%c8;5;%d", type, c->value); + out += xsnprintf(out, len, "%d;5;%d", COLOR_FOREGROUND_256 + offset, + c->value); break; case COLOR_RGB: - out += xsnprintf(out, len, "%c8;2;%d;%d;%d", type, + out += xsnprintf(out, len, "%d;2;%d;%d;%d", + COLOR_FOREGROUND_RGB + offset, c->red, c->green, c->blue); break; } @@ -279,14 +289,12 @@ int color_parse_mem(const char *value, int value_len, char *dst) if (!color_empty(&fg)) { if (sep++) OUT(';'); - /* foreground colors are all in the 3x range */ - dst = color_output(dst, end - dst, &fg, '3'); + dst = color_output(dst, end - dst, &fg, 0); } if (!color_empty(&bg)) { if (sep++) OUT(';'); - /* background colors are all in the 4x range */ - dst = color_output(dst, end - dst, &bg, '4'); + dst = color_output(dst, end - dst, &bg, 1); } OUT('m'); }
Signed-off-by: Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@gmail.com> --- color.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)