Re: [PATCH 1/2] status: really ignore config with --porcelain

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

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Before we begin, let me say that this series is written with the
> emergency-fix mindset, and targets maint.

maint shouldn't be necessary since the breakage hasn't been released. At
worse, we can revert the bad commits now and re-implement them properly
later.

> I didn't spend time thinking about how to do it best or even add
> tests.

No problem.

>> * running the CLI parser after, if --porcelain is given, reset the
>>   effect of the variables. Not very clean because we'd have to reset all
>>   the variables to their default, and there is a risk of forgetting one.
>
> Since it's impossible to determine what effect the CLI parser had on
> various variables (some of which are static global), I'm against this
> approach.

I think you meant "what effect the config parser had". If you meant the
CLI parser, then the guilty commits did not change anything wrt that.

>
>> * Or, running the CLI parser before, but with different variables to
>>   specify what the command-line says and what will actually be done,
>>   with something like
>
> Basically, having the CLI parser and the config parser flip two
> different sets of variables, so we can discriminate who set what.
> What annoys me is that this is the first instance of such a
> requirement.

I don't think it's the first instance, but I can't remember precise
examples.

> The approach I'm currently tilting towards is extending the
> parse-options API to allow parsing one special option early.  I would
> argue that this is a good feature that we should have asked for when
> we saw 6758af89e (Merge branch 'jn/git-cmd-h-bypass-setup',
> 2010-12-10).  What do you think?

That's an option too, yes. But probably not easy to implement :-(.

>>>  builtin/commit.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> No time to contribute one now myself, but this would really deserve a
>> test.
>
> Yeah, will do as a follow-up.  I'm interested in guarding against such
> breakages too :)

Should look like this:

diff --git a/t/t7508-status.sh b/t/t7508-status.sh
index 498332c..423e8c4 100755
--- a/t/t7508-status.sh
+++ b/t/t7508-status.sh
@@ -1378,6 +1378,11 @@ test_expect_success '"status.branch=true" weaker than "--no-branch"' '
        test_cmp expected_nobranch actual
 '
 
+test_expect_success '"status.branch=true" weaker than "--porcelain"' '
+       git -c status.branch=true status --porcelain >actual &&
+       test_cmp expected_nobranch actual
+'
+
 test_expect_success '"status.branch=false" same as "--no-branch"' '
        git -c status.branch=false status -s >actual &&
        test_cmp expected_nobranch actual


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