From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBD11F54E for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 17:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ouam8U/6"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230367AbiHUR4Q (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2022 13:56:16 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42600 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229491AbiHUR4O (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2022 13:56:14 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD4A51A818 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id b5so6417578wrr.5 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc; bh=dbbC9DP+bSSS71RNwEzbYUBQ/YHRk4zq7td/Ski2BRc=; b=ouam8U/6e9PIvMyhfPkHMitj8NP5wk13n9VAB+sjYtqYGtsrHmbAjhXOG8cz0sDXCX LfQBOJQSML7u6pyr177cRBa+PVEvsp/XulZQOlWN6FQKN31ymk6S8ZPTdhWAWXU41FP8 Hn77bFkKAlHTkYvdP4B+R1bFpoEBHPbgHVTgk2RdjtofCNBUkTpaQFHDFhC1AAVljvmi aEV3AFxW/j1FY/r504TwFQmSuLidSPc9ZXSL2xSPfwjELlVVzaBNrgUrI8EBpa1MEQCI KUVAJ06Nlk3Fx8+3rkR79yYUPb3quKAq/sk9Nrn7Ic5kgMbA7JSG+LIB7Qh4Efcs+CcC BG5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=dbbC9DP+bSSS71RNwEzbYUBQ/YHRk4zq7td/Ski2BRc=; b=LT32SRvMToSPqDVGDKiZZI/V+HZ4oPoixl2Eg9C4NMqSPVv0tz7OtLXr5P6FZX54QH D8oTzDStgyBz8OD3XsYUrNQyaJ33kfqDfMZCPBVkMxiP2vYOYMmUQxgyTYeM49PuxLYQ 1r9XNM5FFfHXiv3shgrIDFc1/qmCup9RiI4cmEE/86Ht2b0y36cadTgQNtVg7YE2OtY0 D75QzpNU5tgy3XuV7cmw12/LY/lYG/IkQHgkgCbj9O9xG80T77dk+D5O91JYY202XINa xPYUDavMIj8ZO5xpJ1kUx8cy0ecul8OdwQ+GZ+Ac/sXpH2wL38Eovj7clUkzqCcKVt2Y GgCA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3c7ms+m+NBOBw/twtl/VQqK29iDueAR7+20I4FP7W0kL8CpcRG 09LufNutyrNvT+8i15JylfU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR62ghBpAshfqUSMsyWXO2BAoYEngtlEF2rOc8DeGRncnk3osBR19tRM8oqTNL3RUbpUHROyXw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:716:b0:225:5a5b:9e4d with SMTP id bs22-20020a056000071600b002255a5b9e4dmr676197wrb.612.1661104572036; Sun, 21 Aug 2022 10:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (84-236-78-250.pool.digikabel.hu. [84.236.78.250]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u10-20020a05600c19ca00b003a60f0f34b7sm12887928wmq.40.2022.08.21.10.56.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 21 Aug 2022 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2022 19:56:09 +0200 From: SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/20] builtin/notes.c: let parse-options parse subcommands Message-ID: <20220821175609.GF3373722@szeder.dev> References: <20220725123857.2773963-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <20220819160411.1791200-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <20220819160411.1791200-16-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <220819.86pmgw5cpk.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <220819.86pmgw5cpk.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 08:01:55PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19 2022, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > - int result; > > const char *override_notes_ref = NULL; > > + parse_opt_subcommand_fn *fn = list; > > struct option options[] = { > > OPT_STRING(0, "ref", &override_notes_ref, N_("notes-ref"), > > N_("use notes from ")), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("list", &fn, list), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("add", &fn, add), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("copy", &fn, copy), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("append", &fn, append_edit), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("edit", &fn, append_edit), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("show", &fn, show), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("merge", &fn, merge), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("remove", &fn, remove_cmd), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("prune", &fn, prune), > > + OPT_SUBCOMMAND("get-ref", &fn, get_ref), > > OPT_END() > > }; > > > > git_config(git_default_config, NULL); > > argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, git_notes_usage, > > - PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION); > > + PARSE_OPT_SUBCOMMAND_OPTIONAL); > > + if (fn == list && argc && strcmp(argv[0], "list")) { > > + error(_("unknown subcommand: %s"), argv[0]); This should have been `%s' here, and in cmd_remote() as well. > > + usage_with_options(git_notes_usage, options); > > + } > > I wanted to ask why the API can't smartly handle this, but your "Found > an unknown option given to a command with" comment in an earlier patch > answered it. It's not about unknown options but rather about (non-option) arguments. 'git notes list' doesn't accept any --options, and since this 'list' is the default operation mode, parse_options() is invoked without the PARSE_OPT_KEEP_UNKNOWN_OPT flag, so 'git notes --foo' errors out even without any of the extra checks in the above hunk. However, while 'git notes list' does accept non-option arguments (objects or refs), 'git notes' does not. Alas, currently there is no way to tell parse_options() to error out upon finding a (non-option and non-subcommand) argument, it always keeps them in 'argv'; that's why we need these additional checks. Now, while we could add such a flag, of course, it would not be limited to this one particular use case, so when the error is triggered inside parse_options() I doubt that we could have this specific "unknown subcommand" error message. > I think something in this direction would be a bit more readble/obvious, > as it avoids hardcoding "list": > > diff --git a/builtin/notes.c b/builtin/notes.c > index 42cbae46598..43d59b1a98e 100644 > --- a/builtin/notes.c > +++ b/builtin/notes.c > @@ -995,7 +995,7 @@ static int get_ref(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > int cmd_notes(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > { > const char *override_notes_ref = NULL; > - parse_opt_subcommand_fn *fn = list; > + parse_opt_subcommand_fn *fn = NULL; > struct option options[] = { > OPT_STRING(0, "ref", &override_notes_ref, N_("notes-ref"), > N_("use notes from ")), > @@ -1015,10 +1015,11 @@ int cmd_notes(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > git_config(git_default_config, NULL); > argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, git_notes_usage, > PARSE_OPT_SUBCOMMAND_OPTIONAL); > - if (fn == list && argc && strcmp(argv[0], "list")) { > - error(_("unknown subcommand: %s"), argv[0]); > - usage_with_options(git_notes_usage, options); > - } > + if (!fn && argc) > + usage_msg_optf(_("unknown subcommand: %s"), > + git_notes_usage, options, argv[0]); > + else if (!fn) > + fn = list; > > if (override_notes_ref) { > struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT; > > I.e. we rely on the API setting it to non-NULL if it finds a subcommand, > otherwise we just set it to "list" after checking whether we have excess > arguments. Oh, that does look nicer indeed. > > [...] > > - else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "get-ref")) > > - result = get_ref(argc, argv, prefix); > > - else { > > - result = error(_("unknown subcommand: %s"), argv[0]); > > - usage_with_options(git_notes_usage, options); > > - } > > - > > - return result ? 1 : 0; > > + return !!fn(argc, argv, prefix); > > } > > In any case this is a lot nicer, ditto previous comment about maybe > skipping the refactoring of this end code, but I'm also fine with > keeping it.