On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +static void color_atom_parser(struct used_atom *atom, const char *color_value)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!color_value)
>>> + die(_("expected format: %%(color:<color>)"));
>>> + if (color_parse(color_value, atom->u.color) < 0)
>>> + die(_("invalid color value: %s"), atom->u.color);
>>
>> Shouldn't this be:
>>
>> die(_("invalid color value: %s"), color_value);
>>
>> ?
>
> Oops. You're right, it should.
> Also the error is reported already in color_parse(...), so seems duplicated.
>
> git for-each-ref --format="%(color:sfadf)%(align:middle,30)%(refname)%(end)"
> error: invalid color value: sfadf
> fatal: invalid color value: sfadf
>
> What would be an ideal way around this?
According to f6c5a29 (color_parse: do not mention variable name in
error message, 2014-10-07), the doubled diagnostic messages are
intentional, so I don't think you need to do anything about it in this
series. If you want to make the "fatal" message a bit more helpful,
you could add a %(color:) annotation, like this:
die(_("unrecognized color: %%(color:%s)"), color_value);
which would give you the slightly more helpful:
error: invalid color value: sfadf
fatal: unrecognized color: %(color:sfadf)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html