On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:44:54AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 04:07:14PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > The test 'add -p does not expand argument lists' in > > 't3701-add-interactive.sh', added in 7288e12cce (add--interactive: do > > not expand pathspecs with ls-files, 2017-03-14), checks the GIT_TRACE > > of 'git add -p' to ensure that the name of a tracked file wasn't > > passed around as argument to any of the commands executed as a result > > of undesired pathspec expansion. This check is done with 'grep' using > > the filename on its own as the pattern, which is too loose a pattern, > > and would match any occurrences of the filename in the trace output, > > not just those as command arguments. E.g. if a developer were to > > litter the index handling code with trace_printf()s printing, among > > other things, the name of the just processed cache entry, then that > > pattern would mistakenly match these as well, and would fail the test. > > Is this a real thing we're running into? Well, we, in general, don't, but that example mentioned in the commit message does contain autobiographical elements :) > I'd have thought that anybody > adding index-specific tracing would do it as GIT_TRACE_INDEX. Depends on the purpose, I guess. For tracing that is aimed to become part of in git, definitely. However, for my own ad-hoc tracing used to try to make sense of some split-index corner cases, trace_printf() is perfect. > It's > unfortunate that "trace commands and processes" is just GIT_TRACE, and not > GIT_TRACE_RUN or similar. But that's mostly historical. I wouldn't > expect people to add other subsystems to it. > > Not that I'm totally opposed to your patch, but it's a little sad that > we have to match the specific text used in GIT_TRACE now (and if they > ever changed we won't even notice, but rather the test will just become > a silent noop). > > I think it would be nice if we could move towards something like: > > - move current GIT_TRACE messages to use GIT_TRACE_COMMAND or similar > > - abolish trace_printf() without a specific subsystem key Nah, please leave trace_printf() alone. > - do one of: > > - keep GIT_TRACE as a historical synonym for GIT_TRACE_COMMAND; that > keeps things working as they are now > > - have GIT_TRACE enable _all_ tracing; that's a change in behavior, > but arguably a more useful thing to have going forward (e.g., when > you're not sure which traces are even available) > > And then a test like this would just use GIT_TRACE_COMMAND. Except for removing keyless trace_printf(), I agree.
