On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:18:55PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 05:56, <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Teach Git how to prompt the user for a good bug report: reproduction
> > steps, expected behavior, and actual behavior. Later, Git can learn how
> > to collect some diagnostic information from the repository.
>
> ("Later" meaning "later in this series", or "any day now"? ;-) )
>
> > +SYNOPSIS
> > +--------
> > +[verse]
> > +'git bugreport' [-o | --output <path>]
>
> Hmm. Should that be "[(-o | --output) <path>]"?
Done.
> > +DESCRIPTION
> > +-----------
> > +Captures information about the user's machine, Git client, and repository state,
> > +as well as a form requesting information about the behavior the user observed,
> > +into a single text file which the user can then share, for example to the Git
> > +mailing list, in order to report an observed bug.
>
> Nice description. Got it.
>
> > +The following information is requested from the user:
> > +
> > + - Reproduction steps
> > + - Expected behavior
> > + - Actual behavior
> > +
> > +The following information is captured automatically:
> > +
> > + - Git version (`git version --build-options`)
> > + - Machine information (`uname -a`)
> > + - Versions of various dependencies
> > + - Git config contents (`git config --show-origin --list`)
> > + - The names of all configured git-hooks in `.git/hooks/`
>
> I would have expected these points to appear later, both to make it
> clear what this does commit does (and not), and to highlight what
> user-visible (documentation-worthy) changes later commits bring along.
Sure, agreed.
>
> > +OPTIONS
> > +-------
> > +-o [<path>]::
> > +--output [<path>]::
>
> Drop the "[" and "]"? If you give -o, you'd better give a path as well?
Done.
> > + Place the resulting bug report file in <path> instead of the root of the
>
> `<path>`
Done.
> > +"Please review the rest of the bug report below.\n"
> > +"You can delete any lines you don't wish to send.\n");
>
> "send" sounds like we're *just* about to send this report somewhere, but
> it's "only" going to be written to the disk. Maybe "share", instead?
Nice turn of phrase, done.
> > + if (option_output) {
> > + strbuf_addstr(&report_path, option_output);
> > + strbuf_complete(&report_path, '/');
> > + }
>
> I thought I'd use `-o` to indicate the filename, but it turns out it's
> the *directory* where the file (of some semi-random, generated name)
> will end up. Re-reading the docs further up, I can see how this is
> consistent. I sort of wonder if this should be `--output*-directory*`
> for symmetry with `git format-patch`.
Sure.
> > + strbuf_addstr(&report_path, "git-bugreport-");
> > + strbuf_addftime(&report_path, "%F", gmtime(&now), 0, 0);
> > + strbuf_addstr(&report_path, ".txt");
> > +
> > +
>
> (Double blank line?)
Done.
> > + get_bug_template(&buffer);
> > +
> > + report = fopen_for_writing(report_path.buf);
>
> Report might be NULL here.
Nice.
> If there's already such a file, we overwrite. Should we generate the
> filename using not just today's date (two bug reports in a day wouldn't
> be unheard of?) but also something like hh:mm:ss?
Sure. For the sake of brevity I'll probably neglect seconds; I hope
someone is spending more than 1 minute filling in the provided form.
I'm a little worried about including : in a filename, so I went for
'git-bugreport-YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM' (24-hour).
As I started to write a test to ensure duplicate filenames were handled
well, Jonathan Tan pointed out that it would be easy to add an arg like
--suffix to allow specifying a custom strftime string. That would allow
users to easily create a file named
`git-bugreport-fetch-failing.txt` or `git-bugreport-March-19.txt` or
whatever they want; it also makes testing easy. So I'll add this for the
next rollup.
>
> > + strbuf_write(&buffer, report);
> > + fclose(report);
>
> Maybe clear the strbuf around here...
>
> > + launch_editor(report_path.buf, NULL, NULL);
> > + return 0;
>
> ... and/or UNLEAK it here, together with report_path.
>
> Maybe "return -launch_editor(...)"?
Hm, sure. I see that builtin/tag.c does mark strbufs this way, so I
don't see a problem using UNLEAK and tail-calling launch_editor().
As a final bonus, I also added a line to report to stderr the name of
the file that was created. I noticed it's sort of unclear what the
command actually did otherwise.
> > +#!/bin/bash
>
> Use /bin/sh instead?
Yeah, doing so immediately pointed out the bashisms you mentioned, plus
some more. :facepalm:
>
> > +# Headers "[System Info]" will be followed by a non-empty line if we put some
> > +# information there; we can make sure all our headers were followed by some
> > +# information to check if the command was successful.
> > +HEADER_PATTERN="^\[.*\]$"
> > +check_all_headers_populated() {
> > + while read -r line; do
> > + if [$(grep $HEADER_PATTERN $line)]; then
>
> I think this is a bash-ism.
>
> > + read -r nextline
> > + if [-z $nextline]; then
>
> Likewise.
>
> > + return 1;
> > + fi
> > + fi
> > + done
> > +}
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'creates a report with content in the right places' '
> > + git bugreport &&
> > + check_all_headers_populated <git-bugreport-* &&
> > + rm git-bugreport-*
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success '--output puts the report in the provided dir' '
> > + mkdir foo/ &&
>
> If foo isn't there, do we not create it? Apparently not -- in my
> testing, we segfault. (We don't check for NULL after opening the file.)
Yeah, at the moment I just added a die() if we can't open the provided
path. I think other utilties can create the path (e.g. git-format-patch)
but where it makes sense to do so, I'd prefer to keep bugreport very
simple.
I'll die instead of overwriting, too; you're right that spending quite a
while on a bug report and then accidentally writing over it with a blank
one would be a very bad user experience.
>
> > + git bugreport -o foo/ &&
> > + test -f foo/git-bugreport-* &&
>
> test_path_is_file
Sure.
> > + rm -fr foo/
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'incorrect arguments abort with usage' '
> > + test_must_fail git bugreport --false 2>output &&
> > + grep usage output &&
> > + test ! -f git-bugreport-*
>
> test_path_is_missing
OK.
Thanks very much, Martin, for the thorough review. This is incredibly
helpful.
- Emily
