Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
>
Yeah, I mostly moved the code without much thought into it. This can be
cleaned up. Specifically because we can avoid all the memory allocation
and directly return the string as a 'const char *' as Junio mentioned.
> 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. :)
>
Thanks, will change.
> (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!
I think all these points have good value. I'm happy to address them :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
