Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation - Jean-Noël AVILA

From: "Jean-Noël AVILA" <avila.jn@gmail.com>
To: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 20:47:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6033073.lOV4Wx5bFT@cayenne> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87frxam35f.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>

On Friday, 1 March 2024 15:34:52 CET Sergey Organov wrote:
> Jean-Noël Avila <avila.jn@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Putting my documentation/translator hat:
> >
> > Le 29/02/2024 à 20:07, Sergey Organov a écrit :
> >> What -n actually does in addition to its documented behavior is
> >> ignoring of configuration variable clean.requireForce, that makes
> >> sense provided -n prevents files removal anyway.
> >> 
> >> So, first, document this in the manual, and then modify implementation
> >> to make this more explicit in the code.
> >> 
> >> Improved implementation also stops to share single internal variable
> >> 'force' between command-line -f option and configuration variable
> >> clean.requireForce, resulting in more clear logic.
> >> 
> >> The error messages now do not mention -n as well, as it seems
> >> unnecessary and does not reflect clarified implementation.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/git-clean.txt |  2 ++
> >>  builtin/clean.c             | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> >>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-clean.txt b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
> >> index 69331e3f05a1..662eebb85207 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/git-clean.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
> >> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ OPTIONS
> >>  -n::
> >>  --dry-run::
> >>  	Don't actually remove anything, just show what would be done.
> >> +	Configuration variable clean.requireForce is ignored, as
> >> +	nothing will be deleted anyway.
> >
> > Please use backticks for options, configuration and environment names:
> > `clean.requireForce`
> 
> I did consider this. However, existing text already has exactly this one
> unquoted, so I just did the same. Hopefully it will be fixed altogether
> later, or are you positive I better resend the patch with quotes? 
> 
> >>  
> >>  -q::
> >>  --quiet::
> >> diff --git a/builtin/clean.c b/builtin/clean.c
> >> index d90766cad3a0..fcc50d08ee9b 100644
> >> --- a/builtin/clean.c
> >> +++ b/builtin/clean.c
> >> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
> >>  #include "help.h"
> >>  #include "prompt.h"
> >>  
> >> -static int force = -1; /* unset */
> >> +static int require_force = -1; /* unset */
> >>  static int interactive;
> >>  static struct string_list del_list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> >>  static unsigned int colopts;
> >> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int git_clean_config(const char *var, const 
char *value,
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  	if (!strcmp(var, "clean.requireforce")) {
> >> -		force = !git_config_bool(var, value);
> >> +		require_force = git_config_bool(var, value);
> >>  		return 0;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char 
*prefix)
> >>  {
> >>  	int i, res;
> >>  	int dry_run = 0, remove_directories = 0, quiet = 0, ignored = 0;
> >> -	int ignored_only = 0, config_set = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
> >> +	int ignored_only = 0, force = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
> >>  	int rm_flags = REMOVE_DIR_KEEP_NESTED_GIT;
> >>  	struct strbuf abs_path = STRBUF_INIT;
> >>  	struct dir_struct dir = DIR_INIT;
> >> @@ -946,21 +946,21 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const 
char *prefix)
> >>  	};
> >>  
> >>  	git_config(git_clean_config, NULL);
> >> -	if (force < 0)
> >> -		force = 0;
> >> -	else
> >> -		config_set = 1;
> >>  
> >>  	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, 
builtin_clean_usage,
> >>  			     0);
> >>  
> >> -	if (!interactive && !dry_run && !force) {
> >> -		if (config_set)
> >> -			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and 
neither -i, -n, nor -f given; "
> >> +	/* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no 
sense */
> >> +	if(dry_run)
> >> +		require_force = 0;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!force && !interactive) {
> >> +		if (require_force > 0)
> >> +			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and 
neither -f, nor -i given; "
> >> +				  "refusing to clean"));
> >> +		else if (require_force < 0)
> >> +			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true 
and neither -f, nor -i given; "
> >>  				  "refusing to clean"));
> >> -		else
> >> -			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true 
and neither -i, -n, nor -f given;"
> >> -				  " refusing to clean"));
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >
> > The last two cases can be coalesced into a single case (the last one),
> > because the difference in the messages does not bring more information
> > to the user.
> 
> Did you misread the patch? There are only 2 cases here, the last (third)
> one is marked with '-' (removed). Too easy to misread this, I'd say. New
> code is:
> 
> 		if (require_force > 0)
> 			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and 
neither -f, nor -i given; "
> 				  "refusing to clean"));
> 		else if (require_force < 0)
> 			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true 
and neither -f, nor -i given; "
> 
> and is basically unchanged from the original, except reference to '-n' has 
been
> removed. Btw, is now comma needed after -f, and isn't it better to
> substitute ':' for ';'?
> 
> Thank you for review!
> 
> -- Sergey Organov
> 
> 

Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted the patch. But yet, I'm not sure that specifying 
that this is the default or not is really useful. If the configuration was set 
to true, it is was a no-op. If set to false, no message will appear.