On 11/29/2012 05:08 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 03:18 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>> On 11/26/2012 02:40 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2012 10:11 AM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2012 04:01 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2012 11:36 AM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:30 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>>>> Added new parameter to split_on_separator that allows to
skip
>>>>>>> empty values.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1484
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patch is in attachment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nack. See below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- a/src/util/util.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/src/util/util.c
>>>>>>> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@
>>>>>>> * the separator is a string, and is case-sensitive.
>>>>>>> * optionally single values can be trimmed of of spaces
and
>>>>>>> tabs */
>>>>>>> int split_on_separator(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx, const char
*str,
>>>>>>> - const char sep, bool trim, char
***_list,
>>>>>>> int
>>>>>>> *size)
>>>>>>> + const char sep, bool trim, bool
skip_empty,
>>>>>>> + char ***_list, int *size)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> const char *t, *p, *n;
>>>>>>> size_t l, len;
>>>>>>> @@ -80,6 +81,11 @@ int split_on_separator(TALLOC_CTX
*mem_ctx,
>>>>>>> const
>>>>>>> char *str,
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (len == 0) {
>>>>>>> + if (skip_empty) {
>>>>>>> + /* Move to next string and continue */
>>>>>>> + t = n;
>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Move this^ condition before talloc_realloc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not like the function at all, it seemed to be written for
>>>>> different purpose but slightly modified to fit our needs. I wrote a
>>>>> new
>>>>> version in this patch and added test for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> New patch attached.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michal
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> can you rebase it atop the current master please?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, here is the new patch.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Michal
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Nack.
>>
>> Test issues:
>>
>>> + {
>>> + ", ,,",
>>> + (const char*[]){NULL,},
>>> + true, true,
>>> + 0, 0
>>> + },
>>
>> What is the meaning of the comma after NULL?
>>
>
> It had no meaning. Deleted.
>
>>> + for (i = 0; str_ref = sts[a].expected_list[i], str_out =
>>> list[i]; i++) {
>>> + fail_unless(!strcmp(str_ref, str_out),
>>> + "Expected:%s Got:%s\n", str_ref,
str_out);
>>> + }
>>
>> Please use strcmp() == 0.
>>
>> Function issues:
>>
>>> char **r;
>>
>> Please, choose a better name for this variable. Something that explains
>> its meaning. Maybe 'reallocated_list'?
>
> Done.
>
>>
>>> /* Trim leading whitespace if needed */
>>> while (trim && isspace(*substr_begin) &&
>>> substr_begin < substr_end) {
>>> substr_begin++;
>>> substr_len--;
>>> }
>>>
>>> /* Trim trailing whitespace if needed */
>>> while (trim && substr_end - 1 > substr_begin &&
>>> isspace(*(substr_end-1))) {
>>> substr_end--;
>>> substr_len--;
>>> }
>>
>> Put the condition on one line. And separate trim from while please.
>> if (trim) {
>> while () // leading
>>
>> while () // trailing
>> }
>>
>>> if (!(skip_empty && substr_len == 0)) {
>>
>> if (!skip_empty || substr_len == 0) is more readable in my opinion.
>>
>
> Done.
>
>>> if (substr_len == 0) {
>>> list[num_strings] = talloc_strdup(list, "");
>> ^
>>> } else {
>>> list[num_strings] = talloc_strndup(list, substr_begin,
>>> substr_len);
>> ^
>>> }
>>
>> Indentation...
>
> Done.
>
>>
>>> talloc_free(list);
>>> return ENOMEM;
>>
>> Can you use "fail" pattern instead of calling the former each time
>> allocation fails?
>
> Label "done:" added.
>
>>
>> Otherwise it looks good. I like the function.
>>
>>
>
> New patch attached.
>
> Thanks
> Michal
Hi,
I have few more nitpicks.
In tests:
> {
> NULL,
> NULL,
> false,false,
^ missing comma :P
> 0, EINVAL
> },
Function:
> while (isspace(*substr_begin) &&
> substr_begin < substr_end) {
> substr_begin++;
> substr_len--;
> }
>
> /* Trim trailing whitespace */
> while (substr_end - 1 > substr_begin &&
> isspace(*(substr_end-1))) {
> substr_end--;
> substr_len--;
> }
Can you put those conditions on one line? Both fit into 80 char limit
perfectly and separating them doesn't really help clarity.
> reallocated_list = talloc_realloc(mem_ctx, list, char*,
> num_strings + 2);
^ indentation :)
and
> list = talloc(mem_ctx, char *);
Allocate first on NULL and then talloc_steal() it to mem_ctx. This way
we can catch memory leak. (I know it's obvious there are not any at the
moment, but still...)
And last comment - since the function was completely rewritten, can you
pick either ptr == NULL or !ptr so it is consistent?
I'm sorry, I should have came with these earlier.
Thanks.