Re: [PATCH] test-lib: allow short options to be stacked

[Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@usp.br>]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 1:53 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@usp.br> writes:
>
> > +parse_option () {
> > +	local opt="$@"
>
> I do not think there is any context in which var="$@" makes sense in
> shell script (var="$*" is understandable, though).  
>
> Did you mean opt=$1 here?

Right, it should be $1. Thanks.

> > +# Parse options while taking care to leave $@ intact, so we will still
> > +# have all the original command line options when executing the test
> > +# script again for '--tee' and '--verbose-log' below.
>
> The phrase "below" no longer makes much sense after moving lines
> around, does it?

Oh, I thought "below" referred to the later usage of $@ (when --tee or
--verbose-log are set). I.e. not the parsing section we moved up, but this
one:

elif test -n "$tee"
then
	...
	(GIT_TEST_TEE_STARTED=done ${TEST_SHELL_PATH} "$0" "$@" 2>&1;

Maybe change "below" for "later in the code"?

> > +store_arg_to=
> > +prev_opt=
> > +for opt
> > +do
> > +	if test -n "$store_arg_to"
> > +	then
> > +		eval $store_arg_to=\$opt
> > +		store_arg_to=
> > +		prev_opt=
> > +		continue
> > +	fi
> > +
> > +	case "$opt" in
> > +	--*)
> > +		parse_option "$opt" ;;
> > +	-?*)
> > +		# stacked short options must be fed separately to parse_option
>
> Are you calling concatenated short options, e.g. "-abc", as
> "stacked"?  It sounds like a very unusual phrasing, at least to me.

Yeah, I wasn't really sure about the naming for this. Thanks, "concatenated"
(or "bundled", as Peff suggested in another reply) does sound better.