Elena Petrashen <elena.petrashen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +static int expand_dash_shortcut(const char **argv, int dash_position)
> +{
> + if (!strcmp(argv[dash_position], "-")){
> + argv[dash_position] = "@{-1}";
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> int i;
> int ret = 0;
> + int dash_shortcut = 0;
> int remote_branch = 0;
> struct strbuf bname = STRBUF_INIT;
>
> @@ -213,7 +223,8 @@ static int delete_branches(int argc, const char **argv, int force, int kinds,
> for (i = 0; i < argc; i++, strbuf_release(&bname)) {
> const char *target;
> int flags = 0;
> -
> + if (expand_dash_shortcut (argv, i))
> + dash_shortcut = 1;
> strbuf_branchname(&bname, argv[i]);
I think this code special cases "-" too much. Have you considered
doing this without "dash_shortcut" variable? With that variable,
your code says "there is no previous" when the user says "-", but
isn't that message also appropriate when she says "@{-1}" on the
command line? Furthermore, wouldn't the same apply to the case in
which she said "@{-4}"?
I suspect that you can check that condition immediately after
calling expand-dash-shortcut and then strbuf-branchname, in other
words, right here. And if there is not enough branch switches, you
can say something like "you gave me @{-4} but you haven't made that
many branch switches" and continue the loop.
I _think_ strbuf_branchname() leaves "@{-<N>}" when you do not have
enough branch switches in the reflog, so perhaps
strbuf_branchname(&bname, (!strcmp(argv[i], "-") ? "@{-1}" : argv[i]));
if (starts_with(bname.buf, "@{-")) {
... say "you do not have enough branch switches" here.
... when adjusting the message to end-user input,
... you can look at argv[i] to notice that the original
... input was "-".
error(...);
continue;
}
or something?
That way, there is no change necessary below this line, i.e. from
here...
> if (kinds == FILTER_REFS_BRANCHES && !strcmp(head, bname.buf)) {
> error(_("Cannot delete the branch '%s' "
> @@ -231,9 +242,12 @@ static int delete_branches(int argc, const char **argv, int force, int kinds,
> | RESOLVE_REF_ALLOW_BAD_NAME,
> sha1, &flags);
> if (!target) {
> - error(remote_branch
> - ? _("remote-tracking branch '%s' not found.")
> - : _("branch '%s' not found."), bname.buf);
> + error(dash_shortcut
> + ? _("There is no previous branch that could be"
> + " referred to at the moment.")
> + : remote_branch
> + ? _("remote-tracking branch '%s' not found.")
> + : _("branch '%s' not found."), bname.buf);
> ret = 1;
> continue;
> }
> @@ -262,6 +276,10 @@ static int delete_branches(int argc, const char **argv, int force, int kinds,
> (flags & REF_ISBROKEN) ? "broken"
> : (flags & REF_ISSYMREF) ? target
> : find_unique_abbrev(sha1, DEFAULT_ABBREV));
... to here.
> + if (dash_shortcut == 1)
> + printf( _("\nIf that happened by mistake, you may want to restore"
> + " it with:\n\ngit branch %s %s\n"), bname.buf,
> + find_unique_abbrev(sha1, DEFAULT_ABBREV));
This change can be justified only if we believe that people who say
$ git branch -D -
by mistake are much less clueful than those who say
$ git branch -D @{-1}
$ git branch -D a-misspelled-branch-name
by mistake and need extra help recovering. Is there an evidence to
support such an assumption?
I would actually understand it if this were more like
if (advice_mistaken_branch_deletion)
printf(_("If you deleted the branch by mistake, you can..."));
so that everybody who ran "git branch -D" on a (wrong) branch by
mistake can get the extra help.
--
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