[libvirt] [PATCHv2 04/13] virbuf: add auto-indentation support

[Hai Dong Li]

On 10/21/2011 05:35 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 08:31 PM, Hai Dong Li wrote:
>> This email is just for your attention. I'm relatively new to work in a
>> community, so I didn't pay much attention to the readability of the
>> comments last email. It seems comments lie in a large patch like this is
>> easily to be omitted. So I cut the codes, leave codes associated with
>> the comments.
>
> Yes, trimming to just relevant context is a must for any high-volume 
> patch list.  Also, separate your replies from the quoted material by 
> blank lines, so it stands out better (visually, I find it easier to 
> spot replies that appear in isolation, by scanning just the left 
> column; not to mention that some mailers corrupt long lines on quoted 
> replies where a long single-line paragraph in the original turns into 
> a wrapped multi-line text with the first line quoted but subsequent 
> lines unquoted; adding whitespace before your reply makes it obvious 
> that you made the comment, rather than your mailer reformatting things).
>

Yeh, I think I encountered that when trying to follow threads in an 
email archive file.
Thanks for your advice.

>
>>> + virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2);
>>> + if (virBufferGetIndent(buf, false) != 1 ||
>>> + virBufferGetIndent(buf, true) != 1 ||
>>> + virBufferError(buf)) {
>>> + TEST_ERROR("Wrong indentation");
>>> + ret = -1;
>>> + }
>> So now buf->indent is 1. Go to the next step, the indent is given -2
>> again, see what will happen.
>> if virBufferAdjustIndent failed to check the indent overflow, the
>> buf->indent will be -1,too, so it may avoid the check
>> (virBufferGetIndent(buf, false) != -1) and (virBufferGetIndent(buf,
>> true) != -1).
>>> + virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2);
>> So I think -3 may be better.
>
> Good idea; I've folded that into my patch.
>