Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
> static const char *describe_object(struct object *obj)
> {
> - static struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> - char *name = name_objects ?
> - lookup_decoration(fsck_walk_options.object_names, obj) : NULL;
> + static struct strbuf bufs[4] = {
> + STRBUF_INIT, STRBUF_INIT, STRBUF_INIT, STRBUF_INIT
> + };
If you need to repeat _INIT anyway, perhaps you want to actively
omit the 4 from above, no? If you typed 6 by mistake instead, you'd
be in trouble when using the last two elements.
> static int objerror(struct object *obj, const char *err)
> {
> errors_found |= ERROR_OBJECT;
> - objreport(obj, "error", err);
> + fprintf_ln(stderr, "error in %s %s: %s",
> + printable_type(obj), describe_object(obj), err);
> return -1;
> }
Makes sense.
> static int fsck_error_func(struct fsck_options *o,
> struct object *obj, int type, const char *message)
> {
> - objreport(obj, (type == FSCK_WARN) ? "warning" : "error", message);
> - return (type == FSCK_WARN) ? 0 : 1;
> + if (type == FSCK_WARN) {
> + fprintf_ln(stderr, "warning in %s %s: %s",
> + printable_type(obj), describe_object(obj), message);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + fprintf_ln(stderr, "error in %s %s: %s",
> + printable_type(obj), describe_object(obj), message);
> + return 1;
Make it look more symmetrical like the original, perhaps by
if (type == FSCK_WARN) {
...
return 0;
} else { /* FSCK_ERROR */
...
return 1;
}
Actually, wouldn't it be clearer to see what is going on, if we did
it like this instead?
const char *fmt = (type == FSCK_WARN)
? N_("warning in %s %s: %s")
: N_("error in %s %s: %s");
fprintf_ln(stderr, _(fmt),
printable_type(obj), describe_object(obj), message);
return (type == FSCK_WARN) ? 0 : 1;
It would show that in either case we show these three things in the
message. I dunno.
