From 49915340da02da7d74777225aa1d2e2bb31ac4b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matěj Cepl Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 23:41:04 +0200 Subject: chore: add README.md and LICENSE Also, TODO.md with review comments from https://codepal.ai/code-explainer --- LICENSE | 22 +++++++++ README.md | 20 +++++++++ TODO.md | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ explanation.md | 138 --------------------------------------------------------- tmp.go | 2 +- 5 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 139 deletions(-) create mode 100644 LICENSE create mode 100644 README.md create mode 100644 TODO.md delete mode 100644 explanation.md diff --git a/LICENSE b/LICENSE new file mode 100644 index 0000000..941133c --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +Copyright © 2024 Matěj Cepl, mcepl at cepl dot eu + +Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person +obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation +files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without +restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, +copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell +copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the +Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following +conditions: + +The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be +included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. + +THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, +EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES +OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND +NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT +HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, +WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING +FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR +OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bfc5376 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +# tmp + +Simple utility to store files given as its argument(s) to tmp +files on various websites. + +Run as: + +```sh + $ tmp argument.ext +``` + +and the program prints on the output URL of the uploaded file(s). + +---- + +All issues, questions, complaints, or (even better!) patches +should be send via email to +[~mcepl/devel@lists.sr.ht](mailto:~mcepl/devel@lists.sr.ht) email +list (for patches use [git send-email](https://git-send-email.io/)). + diff --git a/TODO.md b/TODO.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..49244c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/TODO.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +### Possible Bugs +1. **Missing URL Variants Handling**: The code retrieves the + configuration for the command name but does not handle cases where the + command name does not exist in `URL_VARIANTS`, which could lead to + a `nil` dereference. +2. **Error Handling**: The program exits with `os.Exit(1)` if no + arguments are provided, but it does not log a message indicating why it + exited, which could confuse users. +3. **Compression Command**: The code assumes that the `gzip` command is + available in the system's PATH. If it is not, the program will fail + without a clear error message. + +### Possible Improvements +1. **Error Messages**: Add more descriptive error messages when exiting + due to missing command variants or file arguments. +2. **Configuration Validation**: Implement checks to ensure that the + `URL_VARIANTS` map contains the necessary keys before accessing them. +3. **File Compression Feedback**: Provide feedback on successful + compression, such as logging the new file name created. +4. **Command-Line Flags**: Consider using a command-line flag library to + improve argument parsing and provide help messages. + +### Potential Security Concerns +1. **Command Injection**: The use of `exec.Command` with user-provided + input could lead to command injection vulnerabilities if not properly + sanitized. Although the current implementation does not directly take + user input for command execution, it is a consideration for future + modifications. +2. **File Permissions**: The program does not check for file permissions + before attempting to read or compress files, which could lead to + permission errors if the user does not have the necessary rights. +3. **Resource Exhaustion**: If a large number of files are processed, + the program could exhaust system resources (e.g., memory or file + descriptors) if not properly managed, especially if the compression + command spawns many subprocesses. + +### Error Handling Analysis +1. **Use of `log.Fatal`**: The code employs `log.Fatal(err)` to handle + errors, which logs the error message and exits the program. While this + is effective for critical failures, it does not allow for graceful + recovery or error reporting to the user. +3. **Exit on Missing Arguments**: The program exits with `os.Exit(1)` if + no arguments are provided, which is a straightforward approach but could + be improved by providing a user-friendly message indicating the expected + usage. + +### Concurrency and Threading +1. **Single-threaded Execution**: The code processes files sequentially + without any concurrency or parallelism. For large numbers of files, this + could lead to performance bottlenecks. +2. **Potential for Blocking**: The use of `exec.Command` to run external + commands (like `gzip`) can block the main thread until the command + completes, further impacting performance. + +### Refactoring Suggestions +1. **Error Handling Improvement**: Instead of using `log.Fatal`, + consider returning errors to the caller or logging them with more + context. This would allow for better error management and user feedback. +2. **Command Execution Handling**: Wrap the command execution in + a function that can handle retries or provide more detailed error + messages. +3. **Concurrency Implementation**: Introduce goroutines to process files + concurrently, which would significantly improve performance when dealing + with multiple files. +4. **Configuration Management**: Consider externalizing the + `URL_VARIANTS` configuration to a separate file or environment variables + for easier management and updates. + +### Comparisons with Best Practices +1. **Logging Practices**: While logging is used, it could be enhanced by + including timestamps and log levels (info, warning, error) for better + traceability. +2. **Function Modularity**: The `main` function is doing multiple tasks + (argument parsing, file processing, logging), which could be broken down + into smaller, more focused functions to improve readability and + maintainability. + +### Collaboration and Readability +3. **Error Messages**: Providing more informative error messages would + enhance collaboration, as other developers would have a clearer + understanding of issues that arise. +4. **Documentation**: Including a README or documentation that explains + how to use the program, its dependencies, and its configuration would + greatly benefit other developers and users. + +Overall, while the code is functional, there are several areas for +improvement in error handling, concurrency, and readability that could +enhance its robustness and maintainability. diff --git a/explanation.md b/explanation.md deleted file mode 100644 index cc5f0da..0000000 --- a/explanation.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,138 +0,0 @@ -### Overall Explanation of the Code -The provided Go code is a command-line utility designed to check the -size of files passed as arguments and determine whether they should be -compressed based on their size and file extension. The program utilizes -the `gzip` command to compress files larger than 1 MB that do not have -certain compressed file extensions. It also contains a configuration map -(`URL_VARIANTS`) that allows the user to define different base URLs for -various sections, although this part of the code is not actively used in -the main logic. - -### Code Structure Overview -- **Imports**: The code imports necessary packages for logging, - executing commands, handling file paths, and manipulating strings. -- **Constants and Variables**: - - `COMPRESSED_EXTENSIONS`: A slice of strings representing file - extensions that are already considered compressed. - - `URL_VARIANTS`: A map that holds different configurations for - various sections, including base URLs and target URLs. -- **Main Function**: - - Retrieves the command name and checks if it corresponds to any entry - in `URL_VARIANTS`. - - Validates that at least one file argument is provided. - - Iterates over each file argument, checks its size and extension, and - decides whether to compress it. -- **Helper Function**: - - `contains`: Checks if a given item exists within a slice of strings. - -### Possible Bugs -1. **Missing URL Variants Handling**: The code retrieves the - configuration for the command name but does not handle cases where the - command name does not exist in `URL_VARIANTS`, which could lead to - a `nil` dereference. -2. **Error Handling**: The program exits with `os.Exit(1)` if no - arguments are provided, but it does not log a message indicating why it - exited, which could confuse users. -3. **Compression Command**: The code assumes that the `gzip` command is - available in the system's PATH. If it is not, the program will fail - without a clear error message. - -### Possible Improvements -1. **Error Messages**: Add more descriptive error messages when exiting - due to missing command variants or file arguments. -2. **Configuration Validation**: Implement checks to ensure that the - `URL_VARIANTS` map contains the necessary keys before accessing them. -3. **File Compression Feedback**: Provide feedback on successful - compression, such as logging the new file name created. -4. **Command-Line Flags**: Consider using a command-line flag library to - improve argument parsing and provide help messages. - -### External Dependencies -- The code relies on the `gzip` command-line utility for file - compression. It also uses standard Go libraries (`log`, `os`, - `os/exec`, `path/filepath`, `strconv`, and `strings`) which are part - of the Go standard library and do not require external installation. - -### Potential Security Concerns -1. **Command Injection**: The use of `exec.Command` with user-provided - input could lead to command injection vulnerabilities if not properly - sanitized. Although the current implementation does not directly take - user input for command execution, it is a consideration for future - modifications. -2. **File Permissions**: The program does not check for file permissions - before attempting to read or compress files, which could lead to - permission errors if the user does not have the necessary rights. -3. **Resource Exhaustion**: If a large number of files are processed, - the program could exhaust system resources (e.g., memory or file - descriptors) if not properly managed, especially if the compression - command spawns many subprocesses. - -In summary, while the code serves its purpose of checking file sizes and -compressing them as needed, it could benefit from improved error -handling, validation, and security measures to enhance its robustness -and usability. - -### Error Handling Analysis -1. **Use of `log.Fatal`**: The code employs `log.Fatal(err)` to handle - errors, which logs the error message and exits the program. While this - is effective for critical failures, it does not allow for graceful - recovery or error reporting to the user. -2. **Limited Error Context**: The error messages provided do not give - detailed context about where the error occurred, which can complicate - debugging. -3. **Exit on Missing Arguments**: The program exits with `os.Exit(1)` if - no arguments are provided, which is a straightforward approach but could - be improved by providing a user-friendly message indicating the expected - usage. - -### Concurrency and Threading -1. **Single-threaded Execution**: The code processes files sequentially - without any concurrency or parallelism. For large numbers of files, this - could lead to performance bottlenecks. -2. **Potential for Blocking**: The use of `exec.Command` to run external - commands (like `gzip`) can block the main thread until the command - completes, further impacting performance. - -### Refactoring Suggestions -1. **Error Handling Improvement**: Instead of using `log.Fatal`, - consider returning errors to the caller or logging them with more - context. This would allow for better error management and user feedback. -2. **Command Execution Handling**: Wrap the command execution in - a function that can handle retries or provide more detailed error - messages. -3. **Concurrency Implementation**: Introduce goroutines to process files - concurrently, which would significantly improve performance when dealing - with multiple files. -4. **Configuration Management**: Consider externalizing the - `URL_VARIANTS` configuration to a separate file or environment variables - for easier management and updates. - -### Comparisons with Best Practices -1. **Logging Practices**: While logging is used, it could be enhanced by - including timestamps and log levels (info, warning, error) for better - traceability. -2. **Function Modularity**: The `main` function is doing multiple tasks - (argument parsing, file processing, logging), which could be broken down - into smaller, more focused functions to improve readability and - maintainability. -3. **Use of Constants**: The use of constants for file extensions is - good practice, but consider using a more descriptive name for - `COMPRESSED_EXTENSIONS` to clarify its purpose. - -### Collaboration and Readability -1. **Code Comments**: The code includes some comments, but they could be - expanded to explain the purpose of functions and complex logic, making - it easier for collaborators to understand. -2. **Descriptive Variable Names**: Variable names like `cmdname` and - `processedFile` are reasonably descriptive, but further clarity could be - added by using more context-specific names. -3. **Error Messages**: Providing more informative error messages would - enhance collaboration, as other developers would have a clearer - understanding of issues that arise. -4. **Documentation**: Including a README or documentation that explains - how to use the program, its dependencies, and its configuration would - greatly benefit other developers and users. - -Overall, while the code is functional, there are several areas for -improvement in error handling, concurrency, and readability that could -enhance its robustness and maintainability. diff --git a/tmp.go b/tmp.go index 4920075..e57e199 100644 --- a/tmp.go +++ b/tmp.go @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ package main import ( "fmt" - "log" + "log" // TODO: eventually change to slog and manage levels "net/url" "os" "os/exec" -- cgit