On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 04:07:25PM +0200, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> +char *ref_transaction_error_msg(enum ref_transaction_error err)
> +{
> + const char *reason = "";
> +
> + switch (err) {
> + case REF_TRANSACTION_ERROR_NAME_CONFLICT:
> + reason = "refname conflict";
> + break;
> + case REF_TRANSACTION_ERROR_CREATE_EXISTS:
> + reason = "reference already exists";
> + break;
> + case REF_TRANSACTION_ERROR_NONEXISTENT_REF:
> + reason = "reference does not exist";
> + break;
> + case REF_TRANSACTION_ERROR_INCORRECT_OLD_VALUE:
> + reason = "incorrect old value provided";
> + break;
> + case REF_TRANSACTION_ERROR_INVALID_NEW_VALUE:
> + reason = "invalid new value provided";
> + break;
> + case REF_TRANSACTION_ERROR_EXPECTED_SYMREF:
> + reason = "expected symref but found regular ref";
> + break;
> + default:
> + reason = "unkown failure";
> + }
> +
> + return xstrdup(reason);
> +}
The assignment of "" is dead code, I think? We will always assign
"unknown failure" as a last resort. Not a big deal, but just something I
noticed while reading this related to what's going on in patch 4.
Also, s/unkown/unknown/, but that is present in the pre-image. I hope we
don't need to retain it for bug-for-bug plumbing compatibility. :)
(I guess the dead store of "" was present in the original, too, for that
matter).
-Peff
PS Sorry for all the nit-picky comments. I was just going down the
Coverity rabbit hole and didn't really review the rest of the series.
But I wanted to say that the numbers you are seeing are very cool!
