[pacman-dev] [PATCH] libalpm: fix documentation for alpm_pkg_mtree_next

[Morgan Adamiec]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 14:09, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:51:14AM +0100, morganamilo wrote:
> > libarchive uses 1 for EOF, not 0. Instead of using the actual ints, use
> > libarchive's error codes.
> > ---
> >
> > By the way, not familiar with doxygen. Is my wording fine or is there
> > some built in "see also" functionality?
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/libalpm/alpm.h b/lib/libalpm/alpm.h
> > index ffb2ad96..ece894cf 100644
> > --- a/lib/libalpm/alpm.h
> > +++ b/lib/libalpm/alpm.h
> > @@ -1326,7 +1326,8 @@ struct archive *alpm_pkg_mtree_open(alpm_pkg_t *pkg);
> >   * @param pkg the package that the mtree file is being read from
> >   * @param archive the archive structure reading from the mtree file
> >   * @param entry an archive_entry to store the entry header information
> > - * @return 0 if end of archive is reached, non-zero otherwise.
> > + * @return ARCHIVE_OK on success, ARCHIVE_EOF if end of archive is reached,
> > + * otherwise an error occured (see archive.h).
>
> Please, no. Let's not leak details from libarchive in our own API.
>
> >   */
> >  int alpm_pkg_mtree_next(const alpm_pkg_t *pkg, struct archive *archive,
> >               struct archive_entry **entry);
> > --
> > 2.21.0

Why not? The return value is exactly that. If libarchive's return
codes suddenly changed then so would libalpms's. Plus pacman itself
already uses ARCHIVE_OK to check the return code. And finally if we
did not depend on magic numbers then the doc wouldn't be wrong in the
first place.