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

[Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>]

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.

> +/*
> + * 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.

> +	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(...)".

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.

> +	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
?

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/