Hi Junio,
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:44:21AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > @@ -864,6 +866,20 @@ static int git_format_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *cb)
> > from = NULL;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > + if (!strcmp(var, "format.notes")) {
> > + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> > +
> > + rev->show_notes = 1;
> > + if (!strcmp(value, "standard")) {
> > + rev->notes_opt.use_default_notes = 1;
> > + } else {
> > + strbuf_addstr(&buf, value);
> > + expand_notes_ref(&buf);
> > + string_list_append(&rev->notes_opt.extra_notes_refs,
> > + strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL));
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> Unlike the command line option parser, this does not seem to touch
> rev->show_notes_given at all. Intended? I am wondering how well
> this implementation meshes with what 66b2ed09 ("Fix "log" family not
> to be too agressive about showing notes", 2010-01-20) wanted to do,
> which 894a9d33 ("Support showing notes from more than one notes
> tree", 2010-03-12) later extended.
This was intended but I'm not 100% sure that it's correct.
>From what I could gleam from reading the code, `show_notes_given` is
only used by the `cmd_log_init` function, which is not called by
format-patch. As a result, I opted to not set that flag since it's not
really "given" in the sense that a user didn't explicitly pass in a
command-line option indicating they wanted notes.
>
> > +test_expect_success 'format-patch notes output control' '
> > + git notes add -m "notes config message" HEAD &&
> > + test_when_finished git notes remove HEAD &&
> > +
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout >out &&
> > + ! grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --notes >out &&
> > + grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --no-notes >out &&
> > + ! grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --notes --no-notes >out &&
> > + ! grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --no-notes --notes >out &&
> > + grep "notes config message" out &&
> > +
> > + test_config format.notes standard &&
>
> I think we tend to spell these things "default".
>
> Alternatively, the format.notes configuration can be "bool or text",
> and make the variable set to 'true' mean "show notes, using the
> default ref".
I think I'l go with this approach.
>
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout >out &&
> > + grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --notes >out &&
> > + grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --no-notes >out &&
> > + ! grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --notes --no-notes >out &&
> > + ! grep "notes config message" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --no-notes --notes >out &&
> > + grep "notes config message" out
> > +'
>
> OK.
>
> > +test_expect_success 'format-patch with multiple notes refs' '
> > + git notes --ref note1 add -m "this is note 1" HEAD &&
> > + test_when_finished git notes --ref note1 remove HEAD &&
> > + git notes --ref note2 add -m "this is note 2" HEAD &&
> > + test_when_finished git notes --ref note2 remove HEAD &&
> > + ...
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --notes=note1 --notes=note2 >out &&
> > + grep "this is note 1" out &&
> > + grep "this is note 2" out &&
>
> Do we promise the order in which these two lines appear in the output?
According to the code, the order is stable. However, I just read through
the documentation and I realised that the ablility to provide multiple
notes refs is undocumented.
In a future reroll, I'll document the fact that --notes can be provided
multiple times.
>
> > + test_config format.notes note1 &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout >out &&
> > + grep "this is note 1" out &&
> > + ! grep "this is note 2" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --no-notes >out &&
> > + ! grep "this is note 1" out &&
> > + ! grep "this is note 2" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --notes=note2 >out &&
> > + grep "this is note 1" out &&
> > + grep "this is note 2" out &&
>
> So format.notes say note1 but the command line explicitly asks it
> wants note from note2, but the command still gives from note1
> anyway.
>
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --no-notes --notes=note2 >out &&
> > + ! grep "this is note 1" out &&
> > + grep "this is note 2" out &&
>
> And there is a way to work it around, i.e. clear everything
> configured with --no-notes and then name the one you want from the
> command line.
>
> I am not sure if the above is consistent with how our options and
> configurations interact in general. Shouldn't the --notes=note2
> alone in the earlier example cancel format.notes=note1 configured?
I borrowed this behaviour from how format.to behaves. In format-patch,
`--to` gives a recipient that is used _in addition_ to any format.to
variables. `--no-to` can override this. I made format.notes behave
similarly.
>
> > + git config --add format.notes note2 &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout >out &&
> > + grep "this is note 1" out &&
> > + grep "this is note 2" out &&
> > + git format-patch -1 --stdout --no-notes >out &&
> > + ! grep "this is note 1" out &&
> > + ! grep "this is note 2" out
> > +'
> > +
> > echo "fatal: --name-only does not make sense" > expect.name-only
> > echo "fatal: --name-status does not make sense" > expect.name-status
> > echo "fatal: --check does not make sense" > expect.check
