On 2024-09-09 16:02, Fiona Ebner wrote:
Am 29.07.24 um 13:55 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:In some situations we don't want a total empty list. I opted for a dedicated function instead of integrating it as error in the `split_list` function. It is used in many places and the potential fallout from unintended behavior changes is too big. Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.laute...@proxmox.com> Tested-By: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanre...@proxmox.com> Reviewed-by: Shannon Sterz <s.st...@proxmox.com> --- changes since: v3: none v2: newly added src/PVE/Tools.pm | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/PVE/Tools.pm b/src/PVE/Tools.pm index bd305bd..f796bd0 100644 --- a/src/PVE/Tools.pm +++ b/src/PVE/Tools.pm @@ -718,6 +718,14 @@ sub split_list { return @data; }+sub check_list_empty {+ my ($list) = @_; + if (scalar(PVE::Tools::split_list($list)) < 1) { + return 0; + } + return 1; +}This can be very confusing IMHO. Intuitively, I'd expect the expression check_list_empty($list) to be truthy if $list is empty. I'd rather call it list_not_empty. But looking at the caller you introduce later, it might be better to avoid the double negative, flip the truth table and call it list_is_empty.
thanks! sounds like a good idea. I will wait a bit before sending a v5.
+ sub trim { my $txt = shift;
_______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
