Hi Phillip, On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 28/01/2019 21:56, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> If the user gives an empty argument to --exec then the rebase starts to > >>> run before erroring out with > >>> > >>> error: missing arguments for exec > >>> error: invalid line 2: exec > >>> You can fix this with 'git rebase --edit-todo' and then run 'git rebase --continue'. > >>> Or you can abort the rebase with 'git rebase --abort'. > >> > >> Hmph. I do agree that the above makes an unfortunate end-user > >> experience, but I would sort-of imagine that it would even be nicer > >> for such an empty exec to behave as if it were "exec false" but with > >> less severe error message, i.e. a way for the user to say "I want to > >> break the sequence here and get an interactive session". We may not > >> even need to add the "break" insn if we go that way and there is one > >> less thing for users to learn. I dunno, but I tend to prefer giving > >> a useful and safe behaviour to interactive users other than erroring > >> out, when there _is_ such a safe behaviour that is obvious from the > >> situation, and I feel that an empty "exec" is such a case. > > > > That would make things unnecessarily confusing. An empty command is not > > `false` with a gentler error message. An empty command is a missing > > command. > > I agree that having a special meaning to the empty command would be > confusing. Also giving it on the command line only helps if you want to > stop after each pick and my impression is that people want to break > after specific commits to amend a fixup or something like that. > > > I am, however, concerned that special-casing an empty command will not > > make things better: if the user called `git rebase --exec=fasle`, they > > will *still* have to clean up their edit script. > > The empty commands create an invalid todo list which git cannot parse, > this patch is not a step down the path of checking that the command > exists or is valid shell - I don't think that would be possible in the > general case. Well, at least the error message is helpful: it suggests --edit-todo. But as I said in another reply, I understand now that your patch validates the argument as necessary to produce a valid todo list. Thanks, Dscho > > Best Wishes > > Phillip > > > Or just `git rebase --abort`, which I would do whether I had forgotten to > > specify a command or whether I had a typo in my command. > > > >>> Also check that the command does not contain any newlines as the > >>> todo-list format is unable to cope with multiline commands. Note that > >>> this changes the behavior, before this change one could do > >>> > >>> git rebase --exec='echo one > >>> exec echo two' > >> > >> It is very good to check the input, regardless of what an empty > >> "exec" should do. > > > > Should we then also check for incorrect quoting, missing commands, other > > errors? I am not sure that this path leads to sanity. > > > > Ciao, > > Dscho > > > >
