Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] config: allow configuration of multiple hook error behavior

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Cc: "Duy Nguyen" <pclouds@gmail.com>,
	"Git Mailing List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Johannes Sixt" <j6t@kdbg.org>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	"Phillip Wood" <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>,
	"Jonathan Nieder" <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] config: allow configuration of multiple hook error behavior
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 01:08:35 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516050835.GA7723@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190515231017.GM7458@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:10:17PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:

> > An alternative name is onError, probably more often used for event
> > callbacks. But I don't know, maybe errorBehavior is actually better.
> 
> I'm going to use "errorStrategy", since we already have
> submodule.alternateErrorStrategy.

That sounds good (and I don't care too much about the name as long as it
it is in the per-hook subsection like this).

> > should we fall back to hook.errorBehavior? That allows people to set
> > global policy, then customize just a small set of weird hooks.
> 
> Sure, that sounds good.

I like this, too.

> > maybe stop-on-first-error (or if you go with the "onError" name, I
> > think "stop" is enough). I know "stop on/after first hook" does not
> > really make any sense when you think about it. Maybe stop-on-first is
> > sufficient.
> > 
> > I was going to suggest strcasecmp. But core.whitespace (also has
> > multiple-word-values) already sets a precedent on strcmp. I think
> > we're good. Or mostly good, I don't know, we still accept False, false
> > and FALSE.
> 
> I think with errorStrategy, "stop" is fine. Simpler is better.
> 
> I literally picked what Peff had suggested in his email (mostly because
> I'm terrible at naming things), and I don't get the impression he spent
> a great deal of time analyzing the ins and outs of the names before
> sending. I could be wrong, though.

No, I didn't. :) I think "stop" is good. If the others are
report-any-error and report-any-success, then the matching name for this
could be report-first-error.

> > > +               else if (!strcmp(value, "report-any-error"))
> > 
> > I couldn't guess based on this name alone, whether we continue or stop
> > after the reporting part. The 7/7 document makes it clear though. So
> > all good.
> 
> I'm open to hearing better suggestions if anyone has any.

Maybe report-all-errors would indicate that it was going to run all of
the hooks. I dunno. I think the documentation you wrote is plenty clear
with the current name.

-Peff