git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: git <git@vger.kernel.org>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>,
	Miriam Rubio <mirucam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bisect: don't use invalid oid as rev when starting
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 13:08:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD3HtiAj2yiHBZOeqm-=VxVeV7mpwvFRV_mV8y-vsxgQUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2009240947080.5061@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Hi Dscho,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:59 AM Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Christian Couder wrote:

> > -                       rev=$(git rev-parse -q --verify "$arg^{commit}") || {
> > -                               test $has_double_dash -eq 1 &&
> > -                               die "$(eval_gettext "'\$arg' does not appear to be a valid revision")"
> > -                               break
> > -                       }
> > -                       revs="$revs $rev"
>
> These are awfully long lines. The reason is that you kept the indentation
> of the diff. But that's actually not necessary, because we do not need to
> apply a diff here; This code snippet is intended purely for human
> consumption.
>
> What I suggested in my adaptation of your patch was to lose the diff
> markers and to decrease the insane amount of indentation to just one (and
> two) horizontal tabs.

Yeah, I didn't realize that.

When I am sent some code or patch like this, I often hesitate between:

- using it verbatim, which can create issues as it makes me more
likely to overlook something in the case the sender didn't fully check
everything
- looking at the differences with the existing code/patch and applying
them one by one, which has the risk of missing or forgetting a
difference

I guess the best would be to do both and then check the differences
between the 2 results, but it feels like twice the amount of work for
this step.

> > diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> > index b886529e59..70c39a9459 100755
> > --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> > +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> > @@ -82,6 +82,13 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect fails if given any junk instead of revs' '
> >       git bisect bad $HASH4
> >  '
> >
> > +test_expect_success 'bisect start without -- uses unknown arg as path restriction' '
>
> To avoid the overly long line (and also to re-use existing naming
> conventions), I replaced "path restrictions" by "pathspecs" here. What do
> you think?

It's not a huge issue, but I tend to prefer using "restrictions"
because the tests that check that these arguments are used properly
are called "restricting bisection on one dir" and "restricting
bisection on one dir and a file". So I feel that it keeps test names
more coherent.

Best,
Christian.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-24 11:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-23 17:09 [PATCH] " Christian Couder
2020-09-23 17:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-23 20:37 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-09-23 21:05   ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-09-23 21:39     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24  6:10       ` Christian Couder
2020-09-24  6:48         ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24  7:51         ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-09-24 16:39           ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24 18:38             ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-25  7:13               ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-09-25  7:14                 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-09-25 16:54                 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24  6:03 ` [PATCH v2] " Christian Couder
2020-09-24  7:49   ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-09-24 11:08     ` Christian Couder [this message]
2020-09-24 16:44       ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24 18:55   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24 19:25     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24 19:56     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-24 20:53       ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-25 13:09     ` Christian Couder
2020-09-25 13:01   ` [PATCH v3] " Christian Couder

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAP8UFD3HtiAj2yiHBZOeqm-=VxVeV7mpwvFRV_mV8y-vsxgQUQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=christian.couder@gmail.com \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=mirucam@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] bisect: don'\''t use invalid oid as rev when starting' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).