From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Lucas Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, kernel-usp@googlegroups.com,
rcdailey.lists@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com, peff@peff.net,
matheus.bernardino@usp.br,
"Bárbara Fernandes" <barbara.dcf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC WIP PATCH 3/3] tag: add full support for --edit and --no-edit
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:34:44 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqk19djmsr.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191008184727.14337-4-lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com> (Lucas Oshiro's message of "Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:47:27 -0300")
Lucas Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com> writes:
> struct create_tag_options {
> unsigned int message_given:1;
> unsigned int use_editor:1;
> + unsigned int force_editor:1;
> unsigned int sign;
> - if (!opt->message_given || opt->use_editor) {
> + if (opt->force_editor && !opt->message_given && is_null_oid(prev) &&
> + !opt->use_editor) {
> + die(_("no tag message?"));
If we didn't get a message from command line, and there is no
previous tag object to read the message from, there is nowhere but
editor to grab the message to be used, so !use_editor would trigger
an error if force_editor (i.e. the command line explicitly said
either --edit or --no-edit). Makes sense, but I needed to cheat and
look at cmd_tag() to see how "force" is set to understand what is
going on. I have to say "force" is not a good name for this field;
is this use similar to what we typically use an additional _given
field?
> + } else if ((!opt->force_editor && !opt->message_given && is_null_oid(prev))
> + || (opt->force_editor && opt->use_editor)) {
> + /* Editor must be opened */
If there is no --[no-]edit and there is no preexisting message, we
need to use the editor. If the command line explicitly said --edit,
we also would use the editor. OK.
But it starts to make me wonder if you rather want to replace the
single bit use_editor field with an enum with three possible values
(enum { EDITOR_UNSPECIFIED, EDITOR_YES, EDITOR_NO } use_editor).
> prepare_tag_template(buf, opt, prev, path, tag);
> if (launch_editor(path, buf, NULL)) {
> fprintf(stderr,
> _("Please supply the message using either -m or -F option.\n"));
> exit(1);
> }
> + } else if (!opt->message_given) {
> + /* Tag already exists and user doesn't want to change it */
Are we certain at this point in if/else cascade that prev is a valid
tag? How?
> + strbuf_addstr(buf, get_tag_body(prev, NULL));
This NULL tells us something about what I mentioned in my review on 1/3.
> diff --git a/t/t7004-tag.sh b/t/t7004-tag.sh
> index 80eb13d94e..bf43d2c750 100755
> --- a/t/t7004-tag.sh
> +++ b/t/t7004-tag.sh
> @@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG,RFC1991 \
> 'reediting a signed tag body omits signature' '
> echo "rfc1991" >gpghome/gpg.conf &&
> echo "RFC1991 signed tag" >expect &&
> - GIT_EDITOR=./fakeeditor git tag -f -s rfc1991-signed-tag $commit &&
> + GIT_EDITOR=./fakeeditor git tag -f --edit -s rfc1991-signed-tag $commit &&
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> @@ -1356,7 +1356,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG,RFC1991 \
> test_expect_success GPG,RFC1991 \
> 'reediting a signed tag body omits signature' '
> echo "RFC1991 signed tag" >expect &&
> - GIT_EDITOR=./fakeeditor git tag -f -s rfc1991-signed-tag $commit &&
> + GIT_EDITOR=./fakeeditor git tag -f --edit -s rfc1991-signed-tag $commit &&
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
Why do these two need explicit --edit option to invoke the editor?
That smells like an unnecessary backward incompatible change.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-10 3:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-08 18:47 [RFC WIP PATCH 0/3] tag: fix --edit and --no-edit flags Lucas Oshiro
2019-10-08 18:47 ` [RFC WIP PATCH 1/3] tag: factor out tag reading from write_tag_body() Lucas Oshiro
2019-10-09 1:48 ` Matheus Tavares Bernardino
2019-10-10 2:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-08 18:47 ` [RFC WIP PATCH 2/3] tag: factor out prepare tag template code Lucas Oshiro
2019-10-09 3:02 ` Matheus Tavares Bernardino
2019-10-10 2:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-10 4:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-08 18:47 ` [RFC WIP PATCH 3/3] tag: add full support for --edit and --no-edit Lucas Oshiro
2019-10-09 9:19 ` Matheus Tavares Bernardino
2019-10-10 3:34 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-10-10 2:13 ` [RFC WIP PATCH 0/3] tag: fix --edit and --no-edit flags Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqk19djmsr.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=barbara.dcf@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-usp@googlegroups.com \
--cc=lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com \
--cc=matheus.bernardino@usp.br \
--cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=rcdailey.lists@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).