Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] worktree: teach `list` to annotate locked worktree

[Rafael Silva <rafaeloliveira.cs@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 02:26:31AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rafael Silva
> <rafaeloliveira.cs@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The "git worktree list" shows the absolute path to the working tree,
> > the commit that is checked out and the name of the branch. It is not
> > immediately obvious which of the worktrees, if any, are locked.
> >
> > "git worktree remove" refuses to remove a locked worktree with
> > an error message. If "git worktree list" told which worktrees
> > are locked in its output, the user would not even attempt to
> > remove such a worktree or would know how to use
> > `git worktree remove -f -f <path>`
> 
> I would drop "how" from "would know how to" so it instead reads "would
> know to" since seeing the `locked` annotation only lets the user know
> that removal must be forced; the `locked` annotation doesn't teach the
> user _how_ to remove the worktree using force. But, perhaps, my
> original suggestion[1], which did not use "how", was confusing. Maybe
> it could be worded instead:
> 
>     ... not even attempt to remove such a worktree, or would
>     realize that `git worktree remove -f -f <path>` is required.
> 
> Anyhow, this is a very minor nit about the commit message; not
> necessarily worth a re-roll. More comments below...
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cQHDuWy1vc_ngXbMQZQ=a9fd6S5_cCU-2sb_+Te5aEOhw@mail.gmail.com/

The "would realise ..." seems clear to me, will change on the
patch as I will address the test changes aforementioned.

> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-worktree.txt b/Documentation/git-worktree.txt
> > @@ -97,7 +97,8 @@ list::
> >  List details of each working tree.  The main working tree is listed first,
> >  followed by each of the linked working trees.  The output details include
> >  whether the working tree is bare, the revision currently checked out, and the
> > -branch currently checked out (or "detached HEAD" if none).
> > +branch currently checked out (or "detached HEAD" if none). For a locked
> > +worktree the `locked` annotation is also shown.
> 
> I might have dropped the "and" in the final context line and instead
> written this as:
> 
>     ... branch currently checked out (or "detached HEAD" if none),
>     and "locked" if the worktree is locked.
> 
> But not worth a re-roll.

Agreed. I believe it makes the documentation more concise.

> > diff --git a/t/t2402-worktree-list.sh b/t/t2402-worktree-list.sh
> > @@ -61,6 +61,16 @@ test_expect_success '"list" all worktrees --porcelain' '
> > +test_expect_success '"list" all worktress with locked annotation' '
> > +       test_when_finished "rm -rf locked unlocked out && git worktree prune" &&
> > +       git worktree add --detach locked master &&
> > +       git worktree add --detach unlocked master &&
> > +       git worktree lock locked &&
> > +       git worktree list >out &&
> > +       grep "/locked *[0-9a-f].* locked" out &&
> > +       ! grep "/unlocked *[0-9a-f].* locked" out
> > +'
> 
> These grep invocations are a bit loose, thus concern me a little bit.
> 
> First, in Junio's original example of using grep[2], he had two spaces
> after the path component, not one as you have here. The two spaces in
> the regex ensure that there is at least one space separating `/locked`
> and `/unlocked` from the OID hex string, whereas with just one space
> in the regex, as is done here, the space following the path component
> is entirely optional (thus is a less desirable regex).

That is interesting, I didn't know that will be the case - Nice to know :).
Thank you for the explanation.

> 
> Second, because these regexes are not anchored, they could match with
> a false-positive if the person's TRASH_DIRECTORY path is something
> like `/home/proj/unlocked dead locked/git/t/...`. If you anchor the
> pattern with `$`, then this problem goes away:
> 
>     grep "/locked  *[0-9a-f].* locked$" out &&
>     ! grep "/unlocked  *[0-9a-f].* locked$" out
> 

That is very good point and I will re-roll the patch with these two points
addressing the test cases. Thanks.