From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on gnuweeb.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from [10.7.7.5] (unknown [182.253.183.184]) by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 203917E3DC; Wed, 4 Jan 2023 08:37:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gnuweeb.org; s=default; t=1672821430; bh=IwfXo/uDTpNGeikrHxYwKlxVZ8KYnwkvlc9gIrJ9/WU=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WzDRlXkAp5K8arXlPtTq3n6U3H9HGOAfwhpmLmmAyd2KGZNtZCyGyX6vIUqr4g/C2 o+yrn1NUdciyKCWgSFTWHVT0qrLcnIyljlrvsNZLE7bTfiEeqKI0FZzjsa6aiwsyU0 DEGvyJ1qRO7NF3mdSGYNlckWKVo6qCGYPisFfNXWJMbsHNdPGlVSJD25m2HF1WWj9E hgDCfNlZE31am4+iAifExkg58YGflySw6YcALgQx1kzozgktc2whGryZVXJYxUQ+yC tnX+eyCiuSdv1UIh4K7POrJVzvsX0ITM4P33vTf9xmjkJvyl4j15b8l16jj9591+8u RW8KVkz4HVQhg== Message-ID: <49c42cbf-3d9f-7cfb-be5c-b31efb622d64@gnuweeb.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:37:06 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/13] feat(discord): Implement the report_err() Content-Language: en-US From: Ammar Faizi To: Muhammad Rizki Cc: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan , GNU/Weeb Mailing List References: <20230103063641.1680-1-kiizuha@gnuweeb.org> <20230103063641.1680-9-kiizuha@gnuweeb.org> <0a41da94-dae1-2285-4438-de6f026dc059@gnuweeb.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: On 1/4/23 3:30 PM, Ammar Faizi wrote: > Reporting error without DaemonException is always wrong in our situation > right now because we don't get both @atom_url and @thread_url. This > implementation is partially broken. > > You even said it yourself in the code: > >    "# this statement will be changed in the next commit" > > because you know that we don't want to do this. Then why do this? Just > do the correct error reporting in the same patch, no need to implement > the wrong first. Side note: Splitting changes into multiple parts is fine, but no leaving broken bits in the middle. If you want a preparation patch, for example writing a big function helper. That patch should HAVE zero effect to the runtime. A preparation patch should not be doing broken things at runtime. -- Ammar Faizi