Re: [PATCH v2] bisect: don't use invalid oid as rev when starting

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

Hi Dscho,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:59 AM Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Christian Couder wrote:

> > -                       rev=$(git rev-parse -q --verify "$arg^{commit}") || {
> > -                               test $has_double_dash -eq 1 &&
> > -                               die "$(eval_gettext "'\$arg' does not appear to be a valid revision")"
> > -                               break
> > -                       }
> > -                       revs="$revs $rev"
>
> These are awfully long lines. The reason is that you kept the indentation
> of the diff. But that's actually not necessary, because we do not need to
> apply a diff here; This code snippet is intended purely for human
> consumption.
>
> What I suggested in my adaptation of your patch was to lose the diff
> markers and to decrease the insane amount of indentation to just one (and
> two) horizontal tabs.

Yeah, I didn't realize that.

When I am sent some code or patch like this, I often hesitate between:

- using it verbatim, which can create issues as it makes me more
likely to overlook something in the case the sender didn't fully check
everything
- looking at the differences with the existing code/patch and applying
them one by one, which has the risk of missing or forgetting a
difference

I guess the best would be to do both and then check the differences
between the 2 results, but it feels like twice the amount of work for
this step.

> > diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> > index b886529e59..70c39a9459 100755
> > --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> > +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> > @@ -82,6 +82,13 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect fails if given any junk instead of revs' '
> >       git bisect bad $HASH4
> >  '
> >
> > +test_expect_success 'bisect start without -- uses unknown arg as path restriction' '
>
> To avoid the overly long line (and also to re-use existing naming
> conventions), I replaced "path restrictions" by "pathspecs" here. What do
> you think?

It's not a huge issue, but I tend to prefer using "restrictions"
because the tests that check that these arguments are used properly
are called "restricting bisection on one dir" and "restricting
bisection on one dir and a file". So I feel that it keeps test names
more coherent.

Best,
Christian.