Re: [PATCH v5] diff: add config option relative

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Đoàn Trần Công Danh" <congdanhqx@gmail.com>
Cc: Laurent Arnoud <laurent@spkdev.net>,
	phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk,
	"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>,
	git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] diff: add config option relative
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 10:03:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqzha541la.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200518135656.GB1980@danh.dev> (=?utf-8?B?IsSQb8OgbiBUcg==?= =?utf-8?B?4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh"'s message of "Mon, 18 May 2020 20:56:56 +0700")

Đoàn Trần Công Danh  <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes:

>> @@ -4558,6 +4563,8 @@ void repo_diff_setup(struct repository *r, struct diff_options *options)
>>  		options->b_prefix = "b/";
>>  	}
>> 
>> +	options->flags.relative_name = diff_relative;
>> +
>
> Nitpick:
>
> I don't think this option is too special to add a newline to separate
> it from the rest :)
>
> Sorry about not seeing this earlier, I'm a very careless person.
>
> Anyway, I think (just a matter of my _personal_ preference),
> it's better to move it up 21 lines, together with:
>
> 	options->flags.rename_empty = 1;

Sounds like a reasonable improvement of readability.

>> diff --git a/t/t4045-diff-relative.sh b/t/t4045-diff-relative.sh
>> index 258808708e..ac264ccc2a 100755
>> --- a/t/t4045-diff-relative.sh
>> +++ b/t/t4045-diff-relative.sh
>> @@ -8,7 +8,8 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
>>  	echo content >file1 &&
>>  	mkdir subdir &&
>>  	echo other content >subdir/file2 &&
>> -	blob=$(git hash-object subdir/file2) &&
>> +	blob_file1=$(git hash-object file1) &&
>> +	blob_file2=$(git hash-object subdir/file2) &&
>
> This rename from blob to blob_file2 is a noise to this patch.
>
> Not sure if we should make a preparatory patch to rename, though.

I personally do not mind this one.  It is crystal clear from the
patch text: "We used to use only one and managed to get away without
blob1/blob2 but now we use more than 1, so let's use names with
number suffix".  On the other hand, a "preparatory patch" that
renames blob to blob_file1 before we need the second one is a noise.

> *I* would say yes, and another patch to move all git-related code
> into test_expect_* family. Then, all new testing code for git in this
> patch should be placed inside test_expect_*, too.

The latter clean-up to make sure we won't notice Git failure outside
test_expect_* block may make sense, but I do not know if we want to
make it a preparatory clean-up or "remember to do so later when the
dust settles".  If this single-patch topic needs to touch only a
small part of the existing test to do its job, and such a clean-up
ends up touching far wider parts of the script, then I would say we
can do so as a post-patch clean-up, not as a part of the topic.

>
> I think it's better to wait for other's opinions :)
>
>> @@ -86,4 +87,80 @@ do
>>  	check_$type . dir/file2 --relative=sub
>>  done
>> 
>> +	diff --git a/$expect b/$expect
>> +	new file mode 100644
>> +	index 0000000..$short_blob_file2
>> +	--- /dev/null
>> +	+++ b/$expect
>> +	@@ -0,0 +1 @@
>> +	+other content
>> +	EOF
>> +	test_expect_success "config diff.relative $relative_opt -p $*" "
>> +		test_config -C $dir diff.relative $relative_opt &&
>> +		git -C '$dir' diff -p $* HEAD^ >actual &&
>> +		git -C '$dir' diff -p $* HEAD^ >/tmp/actual &&
>
> Please this leftover from debugging.

Thanks for a careful review, again.