> On 26 Feb 2019, at 18:36, Imeev Mergen wrote: > Hi! Thank you for review! My answers below. > On 2/26/19 5:47 PM, n.pettik wrote: >>> diff --git a/src/box/sql.c b/src/box/sql.c >>> index 580f3fa..116e3e8 100644 >>> --- a/src/box/sql.c >>> +++ b/src/box/sql.c >>> @@ -1362,13 +1362,8 @@ sql_checks_resolve_space_def_reference(ExprList *expr_list, >>> parser.parse_only = true; >>> >>> sql_resolve_self_reference(&parser, def, NC_IsCheck, NULL, expr_list); >>> - int rc = 0; >>> - if (parser.rc != SQL_OK) { >>> - /* Tarantool error may be already set with diag. */ >>> - if (parser.rc != SQL_TARANTOOL_ERROR) >>> - diag_set(ClientError, ER_SQL, parser.zErrMsg); >>> - rc = -1; >>> - } >>> + if (parser.rc != SQL_OK) >>> + return -1; >> Since now we have only one possible RC, lets remove >> its name and simply check (parser.rc != 0). >> Or, as suggested Konstantin, better replace rc with bool is_aborted flag. > Do you mind if I do this in a new patch? Sure, but place it before this one. >>> diff --git a/src/box/sql/build.c b/src/box/sql/build.c >>> index deb5b89..6afca4a 100644 >>> --- a/src/box/sql/build.c >>> +++ b/src/box/sql/build.c >>> @@ -493,16 +493,10 @@ sql_column_add_nullable_action(struct Parse *parser, >>> struct field_def *field = &def->fields[def->field_count - 1]; >>> if (field->nullable_action != ON_CONFLICT_ACTION_DEFAULT && >>> nullable_action != field->nullable_action) { >>> - /* Prevent defining nullable_action many times. */ >>> - const char *err_msg = >>> - tt_sprintf("NULL declaration for column '%s' of table " >>> - "'%s' has been already set to '%s'", >>> - field->name, def->name, >>> - on_conflict_action_strs[field-> >>> - nullable_action]); >>> - diag_set(ClientError, ER_SQL, err_msg); >>> - parser->rc = SQL_TARANTOOL_ERROR; >>> - parser->nErr++; >>> + sqlErrorMsg(parser, "NULL declaration for column '%s' of "\ >>> + "table '%s' has been already set to '%s'", >>> + field->name, def->name, >>> + on_conflict_action_strs[field-> nullable_action]); >> This looks like step back in our attempt at using diag_set. >> We do you need to incapsulate diag into sqlErrorMsg? > I thought that it was good idea to incapsulate all SQL errors that No, it wasn’t. > cannot be fixed in just parse_context->rc = SQL_TARANTOOL_ERROR > and diag_set(). Here it uses tt_printf() in addition to these two > commands. It’s OK. Revert this (and other) change(s), please. Lets use pure diag_set + abort flag. >>> return; >>> } >>> field->nullable_action = nullable_action; >>> diff --git a/src/box/sql/delete.c b/src/box/sql/delete.c >>> index 5170c7f..a7bf3b3 100644 >>> --- a/src/box/sql/delete.c >>> +++ b/src/box/sql/delete.c >>> @@ -94,31 +94,22 @@ sql_table_truncate(struct Parse *parse, struct SrcList *tab_list) >>> struct space *space = space_by_name(tab_name); >>> if (space == NULL) { >>> diag_set(ClientError, ER_NO_SUCH_SPACE, tab_name); >>> - goto tarantool_error; >>> + sql_parser_error(parse); >> Look, anyway you remove this function in next commit. >> Next time please consider order of refactoring. > You are right, I will return to what was before and refactor in > the next commit. Don’t waste time now, it was just advice to keep in mind. >>> } >>> if (! rlist_empty(&space->parent_fk_constraint)) { >>> - const char *err_msg = >>> - tt_sprintf("can not truncate space '%s' because other " >>> - "objects depend on it", space->def->name); >>> - diag_set(ClientError, ER_SQL, err_msg); >>> - goto tarantool_error; >>> + sqlErrorMsg(parse, "can not truncate space '%s' because other " >>> + "objects depend on it", space->def->name); >> Replace invocation of sqlErrorMsg with diag_set + parser->rc. >> The same in other places. > Answer is the same as in second question. >> >>> @@ -146,11 +145,7 @@ sqlPrepare(sql * db, /* Database handle. */ >>> *ppStmt = (sql_stmt *) sParse.pVdbe; >>> } >>> >>> - if (zErrMsg) { >>> - sqlErrorWithMsg(db, rc, "%s", zErrMsg); >>> - } else { >>> - sqlError(db, rc); >>> - } >>> + sqlError(db, rc); >> sqlError seems to be useless/dead. Please, make a note somewhere >> to remove it as follow-up to error-refactoring patch-set. > Do you mind if I do this in a new patch? You don’t have to do it right now, it can wait till 2.2 Just file this issue somewhere.