Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rm: better error message on failure for multiple files

["Mathieu Liénard--Mayor" <mathieu.lienard--mayor@ensimag.fr>]

Le 2013-06-10 16:38, Matthieu Moy a écrit :
> Mathieu Lienard--Mayor <Mathieu.Lienard--Mayor@ensimag.imag.fr> 
> writes:
>
>> When 'git rm' fails, it now displays a single message
>> with the list of files involved, instead of displaying
>> a list of messages with one file each.
>>
>> As an example, the old message:
>> 	error: 'foo.txt' has changes staged in the index
>> 	(use --cached to keep the file, or -f to force removal)
>> 	error: 'bar.txt' has changes staged in the index
>> 	(use --cached to keep the file, or -f to force removal)
>>
>> would now be displayed as:
>> 	error: the following files have changes staged in the index:
>> 	    foo.txt
>> 	    bar.txt
>> 	(use --cached to keep the file, or -f to force removal)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Lienard--Mayor 
>> <Mathieu.Lienard--Mayor@ensimag.imag.fr>
>> Signed-off-by: Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia 
>> <Jorge-Juan.Garcia-Garcia@ensimag.imag.fr>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>list
>
> There's a "list" after my email, probably a typo.
yes, that's a leftover from a rebase-i
>
>> +/*
>> + * PRECONDITION: files_list is a non-empty string_list
>> + */
>
> Avoid repeating in comments what the code already says. "file_list is
> non-empty" is sufficient, we already know it's a string_list.
Okay
>
>> +	if (files_staged.nr)
>> +		errs = print_error_files(&files_staged,
>> +					 _("the following files have staged "
>> +					   "content different from both the"
>> +					   "\nfile and the HEAD:"),
>> +					 _("\n(use -f to force removal)"));
>> +	if (files_cached.nr)
>> +		errs = print_error_files(&files_cached,
>> +					 _("the following files have changes "
>> +					   "staged in the index:"),
>> +					 _("\n(use --cached to keep the file, "
>> +					   "or -f to force removal)"));
>
> What happens if both conditions are true? It seems the second will
> override the first. I think it'd be OK because what matters is that 
> errs
> is set by someone, no matter who, and the error message is displayed 
> on
> screen, not contained in the variable, but this looks weird.
>
> I'd find it more readable with "errs |= print_error_files(...)".
Well the current code is only using errs=error(...), using the same 
variable errs over and over, no matter how many times it loops.
That's why i implemented it similarly.
>
> And actually, you may want to move the if (....nr) inside
> print_error_files (wich could then be called 
> print_error_files_maybe).
>
> At least, there should be a test where two conditions are true.
I'll do that, to be sure about the behaviour.
>
>> +	if (files_submodule.nr)
>> +		errs = print_error_files(&files_submodule,
>> +					 _("the following submodules (or one "
>> +					   "of its nested submodule) use a "
>> +					   ".git directory:"),
>> +					 _("\n(use 'rm -rf' if you really "
>> +					   "want to remove i including all "
>
> i -> it
> ?

-- 
Mathieu Liénard--Mayor,
2nd year at Grenoble INP - ENSIMAG
(+33)6 80 56 30 02