Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] builtin/config.c: prefer `--type=bool` over `--bool`, etc.

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:40:51PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:29:18PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
> > > +ensure that the variable(s) are of the given type and convert the value to the
> > > +canonical form. If no type specifier is passed, no checks or transformations are
> > > +performed on the value.
> > > @@ -160,30 +158,34 @@ See also <<FILES>>.
> > >  --list::
> > >         List all variables set in config file, along with their values.
> > >
> > > ---bool::
> > > -       'git config' will ensure that the output is "true" or "false"
> > > +--type <type>::
> > > +  'git config' will ensure that any input output is valid under the given type
> > > +  constraint(s), and will canonicalize outgoing values in `<type>`'s canonical
> > > +  form.
> >
> > In response to my question[2] about whether the typesetting "[type]"
> > meant that it was optional, you responded[1] that it was not, thus
> > correctly changed the typesetting to "<type>". However...
>
> Right, "--type" without a specifier means nothing (also, I missed this
> in my review, but "input output" in the quoted text?)

I missed this too; thanks for pointing it out. I have amended this in
the forthcoming re-roll.

> > > diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> > > @@ -1622,4 +1623,21 @@ test_expect_success 'later legacy specifiers are given precedence' '
> > > +test_expect_success '--no-type unsets type specifiers' '
> > > +       echo "10" > expect &&
> > > +       git config --type=bool --no-type core.number >actual &&
> > > +       test_cmp expect actual
> > > +'
> >
> > What does --no-type mean and why is it being tested? If this is an
> > explicitly supported user-facing option, should it be documented? If
> > it's not meant to be user-facing, then why are we enforcing its
> > presence and behavior via a test?
>
> It would be the same as if no --type option had been given. The current
> documentation says:
>
>   If no type specifier is passed, no checks or transformations are
>   performed on the value.
>
> That's retained in the DESCRIPTION section, but it may be worth a
> mention of the "--no-type" behavior in the OPTIONS section, too. I
> dunno.

Fair; my inclination is to document it, since it is potentially useful
for scripts (as I mentioned in my mail to Eric).

Thanks,
Taylor