On 2/10/2020 12:04 AM, Heba Waly via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Heba Waly <heba.waly@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add a new advise_ng function that can check the visibility of advice
> messages before printing.
>
> Currently it's very easy for the callers to miss checking the
> visibility step. Also, it makes more sense for this step to be handled
> by the advice library.
This makes the advice API much easier and its uses much cleaner. Thanks!
> Also change the advise call in tag library from advise() to advise_ng()
> to construct an example of the usage of the new API.
This is a good example case.
> +static const char turn_off_instructions[] =
> +N_("\n"
> +"Turn this message off by running\n"
> +"\"git config %s false\"");
I have mixed feelings on the use of these instructions. Perhaps at
minimum the addition of these instructions could be left to a
separate patch than the creation of advise_ng().
My biggest concern is that this adds unexpected noise to users who
want the advice to stay. I'm calling attention to it, because this
part isn't a simple refactor like the rest of the patch.
If it _does_ stay, then I recommend condensing the message to
a single line. For example:
Disable this message with "git config %d false"
> +void advise_ng(const char *key, const char *advice, ...)
> +{
> + int value = 1;
> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> + va_list params;
> + const char *cp, *np;
> +
> + git_config_get_bool(key, &value);
> +
> + if(value)
> + {
Style: spacing, and opening braces are on the same line as the if:
if (value) {
But also, this method would be simpler if the opposite case was
an early return:
if (!value)
return;
Then the rest could have one less indentation.
> + va_start(params, advice);
> + strbuf_vaddf(&buf, advice, params);
> + va_end(params);
> +
> + strbuf_addf(&buf, turn_off_instructions, key);
> +
> + for (cp = buf.buf; *cp; cp = np) {
> + np = strchrnul(cp, '\n');
> + fprintf(stderr, _("%shint: %.*s%s\n"),
> + advise_get_color(ADVICE_COLOR_HINT),
> + (int)(np - cp), cp,
> + advise_get_color(ADVICE_COLOR_RESET));
> + if (*np)
> + np++;
> + }
> + strbuf_release(&buf);
This loop looks like it was copied from advise(). Perhaps we could
re-use that code better by creating a new vadvise() method that
takes a va_list, and have advise() and advise_ng() call it instead?
I include a patch at the end of this method that does this conversion.
(Feel free to incorporate it into your next version, if you want, but
be sure to add your sign-off.) Then, your advise_ng() can call these:
vadvise(advice, params);
advise(turn_off_instructions, key);
removing the need to re-implement the for loop.
> diff --git a/t/helper/test-advise.c b/t/helper/test-advise.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..b6ec90fd18
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/helper/test-advise.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +#include "test-tool.h"
> +#include "cache.h"
> +#include "advice.h"
> +
> +int cmd__advise_ng(int argc, const char **argv)
> +{
> + if (!argv[1] || !argv[2])
> + die("usage: %s <key> <advice>", argv[0]);
> +
> + setup_git_directory();
> +
> + advise_ng(argv[1], argv[2]);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
I definitely tend to recommend more tests than most, but perhaps this
unit test is overkill? You demonstrate a good test below using a real
Git command, which should be sufficient. If the "turn this message off"
part gets removed, then you will still have coverage of your method.
It just won't require a test change because it would not modify behavior.
> diff --git a/t/t7004-tag.sh b/t/t7004-tag.sh
> index 6db92bd3ba..b7c8d41899 100755
> --- a/t/t7004-tag.sh
> +++ b/t/t7004-tag.sh
> @@ -1726,6 +1726,8 @@ test_expect_success 'recursive tagging should give advice' '
> hint: already a tag. If you meant to tag the object that it points to, use:
> hint: |
> hint: git tag -f nested annotated-v4.0^{}
> + hint: Turn this message off by running
> + hint: "git config advice.nestedTag false"
> EOF
> git tag -m nested nested annotated-v4.0 2>actual &&
> test_i18ncmp expect actual
>
> base-commit: c7a62075917b3340f908093f63f1161c44ed1475
Thanks,
-Stolee
-->8--
From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:33:20 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] advice: extract vadvise() from advise()
In preparation for a new advice method, extract a version of advise()
that uses an explict 'va_list' parameter. Call it from advise() for a
functionally equivalent version.
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
advice.c | 13 +++++++++----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/advice.c b/advice.c
index 249c60dcf3..fd836332da 100644
--- a/advice.c
+++ b/advice.c
@@ -96,15 +96,12 @@ static struct {
{ "pushNonFastForward", &advice_push_update_rejected }
};
-void advise(const char *advice, ...)
+static void vadvise(const char *advice, va_list params)
{
struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
- va_list params;
const char *cp, *np;
- va_start(params, advice);
strbuf_vaddf(&buf, advice, params);
- va_end(params);
for (cp = buf.buf; *cp; cp = np) {
np = strchrnul(cp, '\n');
@@ -118,6 +115,14 @@ void advise(const char *advice, ...)
strbuf_release(&buf);
}
+void advise(const char *advice, ...)
+{
+ va_list params;
+ va_start(params, advice);
+ vadvise(advice, params);
+ va_end(params);
+}
+
int git_default_advice_config(const char *var, const char *value)
{
const char *k, *slot_name;
--
2.25.0.vfs.1.1.1.g9906319d24.dirty
