Eric Sunshine writes:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Rafael Silva
> <rafaeloliveira.cs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The "git worktree list" command shows the absolute path to the worktree,
>> the commit that is checked out, the name of the branch, and a "locked"
>> annotation if the worktree is locked. It is not clear whether a worktree,
>> if any, is prunable.
>
> Maybe this could just say...
>
> ... "locked" annotation if the worktree is locked,
> however, it does not indicate whether it is prunable.
>
Make sense.
>> The "prune" command will remove a worktree in case
>> is a prunable candidate unless --dry-run option is specified. This could
>
> s/case is/case it is/
>
> Or better:
>
> ... will remove a worktree if it is prunable unless...
>
Yeah, it seems better.
>> lead to a worktree being removed without the user realizing before is to
>> late, in case the user forgets to pass --dry-run for instance.
>
> s/before is/before it is/
> s/to/too/
>
Nice catch, thanks.
>> If the "list" command shows which worktree is prunable, the user could
>> verify before running "git worktree prune" and hopefully prevents the
>> working tree to be removed "accidently" on the worse case scenario.
>>
>> Let's teach "git worktree list" to show when a worktree is prunable by
>> appending "prunable" text to its output by default and show a prunable
>> label for the porcelain format followed by the reason, if the avaiable.
>> While at it, let's do the same for the "locked" annotation.
>
> s/avaiable/available/
>
Another good catch, thanks.
>> Also, the worktree_prune_reason() stores the reason why git is selecting
>> the worktree to be pruned, so let's leverage that and also display this
>> information to the user. However, the reason is human readable text that
>> can take virtually any size which might make harder to extend the "list"
>> command with additional annotations and not fit nicely on the screen.
>>
>> In order to address this shortcoming, let's teach "git worktree list" to
>> take a verbose option that will output the prune reason on the next line
>> indented, if the reason is available, otherwise the annotation is kept on
>> the same line. While at it, let's do the same for the "locked"
>> annotation.
>
> This is a lot of changes for one patch to be making, and it's hard for
> a reader to digest all those changes from the commit message. I think
> I counted four distinct changes being made here:
>
> 1. extend porcelain to include lock line (with optional reason)
> 2. add prunable annotation to normal list output
> 3. add prune line (with optional reason) to porcelain output
> 4. extend normal list output with --verbose to include reasons
>
> The patch itself is not overly large or complicated, so perhaps
> combining all these changes together is reasonable, although I'm quite
> tempted to ask for them to be separated into at least four patches
> (probably in the order shown above). A benefit of splitting them into
> distinct patches is that you can add targeted documentation and test
> updates to each individual patch rather than saving all the
> documentation and test updates for a single (large) patch at the end
> of the series. This helps reviewers reason about the changes more
> easily since they get to see how each change impacts the documentation
> and tests rather than having to wait for a patch late in the series to
> make all the documentation and test updates, at which point the
> reviewers may have forgotten details of the earlier patches.
>
> (I've come back here after reading and reviewing the patch itself, and
> I'm on the fence as to whether to suggest splitting this into multiple
> patches. The changes in this patch are easy enough to understand and
> digest, so I'm not convinced it makes sense to ask you to do all the
> extra work of splitting it into smaller pieces. On the other hand, it
> might be nice to have each documentation and test update done in the
> patch which makes each particular change. So, I don't have a good
> answer. Use your best judgment and do the amount of work you feel is
> appropriate.)
>
Interesting point. During the creation of this series it was not clear
to me how to properly split them in a way that was easier to review it.
I'm inclined to split the series in the way that you are suggesting,
specially about having the tests and documentation together. I believe
this also make sense to reason about in the future when looking over the
commit history of the project without needing to go back and forth
to understand the documentation vs implementation vs testing.
>> The output of "git worktree list" with verbose becomes like so:
>>
>> $ git worktree list --verbose
>> /path/to/main aba123 [main]
>> /path/to/locked acb124 [branch-a] locked
>> /path/to/locked-reason acc125 [branch-b]
>> locked: worktree with locked reason
>> /path/to/prunable acd126 [branch-c] prunable
>> /path/to/prunable-reason ace127 [branch-d]
>> prunable: gitdir file points to non-existent location
>
> One "weird" aesthetic issue is that if the lock reason contains
> newlines, the subsequent lines of the lock reason are not indented.
> However, this is a very minor point and I don't think this patch
> series should worry about it. We can think about how to address it
> some time in the future if someone ever complains about it.
>
Yes, that is something that was scratching my head and it was not clear
whether something that we should roll out with this patch. But I agree,
that we can address this time in the future.
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael Silva <rafaeloliveira.cs@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> builtin/worktree.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/worktree.c b/builtin/worktree.c
>> index eeb3ffaed0..dedd4089e5 100644
>> --- a/builtin/worktree.c
>> +++ b/builtin/worktree.c
>> @@ -578,6 +578,20 @@ static void show_worktree_porcelain(struct worktree *wt)
>> + if (worktree_lock_reason(wt)) {
>> + if (*wt->lock_reason)
>> + printf("locked %s\n", wt->lock_reason);
>> + else
>> + printf("locked\n");
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (worktree_prune_reason(wt, expire)) {
>> + if (*wt->prune_reason)
>> + printf("prunable %s\n", wt->prune_reason);
>> + else
>> + printf("prunable\n");
>> + }
>
> A couple observations...
>
> As a consumer of `struct worktree`, builtin/worktree.c should not be
> poking at or accessing the structure's private fields `prune_reason`
> and `lock_reason`; instead it should be retrieving those values via
> worktree_prune_reason() and worktree_lock_reason() which are part of
> the public API.
>
Make sense.
> If a worktree is prunable, then worktree_prune_reason() will
> unconditionally return a (non-empty) string; if it is not prunable,
> then it will unconditionally return NULL. This means that the
> `printf("prunable\n")` case is dead-code; it will never be reached.
> This differs from worktree_lock_reason() which can return an empty
> string to indicate a locked worktree for which no reason has been
> specified.
>
Great point. I will remove the dead-code from the implementation as that
state is never going to be reached given the current implementation of
worktree_prune_reason().
Thanks.
> Taking the above observations into account, a reasonable rewrite would be:
>
> const char *reason;
>
> reason = worktree_lock_reason(wt);
> if (reason && *reason)
> printf("locked %s\n", reason);
> else if (reason)
> printf("locked\n");
>
> reason = worktree_prune_reason(wt, expire);
> if (reason)
> printf("prunable %s\n", reason);
>
Yeah, this suggested snippet seems like sensible rewrite and much easier
to reason about.
>> @@ -604,8 +618,19 @@ static void show_worktree(struct worktree *wt, int path_maxlen, int abbrev_len)
>> strbuf_addstr(&sb, "(error)");
>> }
>>
>> - if (!is_main_worktree(wt) && worktree_lock_reason(wt))
>> - strbuf_addstr(&sb, " locked");
>> + if (worktree_lock_reason(wt)) {
>> + if (verbose && *wt->lock_reason)
>> + strbuf_addf(&sb, "\n\tlocked: %s", wt->lock_reason);
>> + else
>> + strbuf_addstr(&sb, " locked");
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (worktree_prune_reason(wt, expire)) {
>> + if (verbose && *wt->prune_reason)
>> + strbuf_addf(&sb, "\n\tprunable: %s", wt->prune_reason);
>> + else
>> + strbuf_addstr(&sb, " prunable");
>> + }
>
> Same observations here about using public API rather than touching
> private `struct worktree` fields, and about the final `else` case
> being dead code.
>
Make sense.
>> @@ -650,12 +675,18 @@ static int list(int ac, const char **av, const char *prefix)
>> OPT_BOOL(0, "porcelain", &porcelain, N_("machine-readable output")),
>> + OPT__VERBOSE(&verbose, N_("show extended annotations and reasons, if available")),
>> + OPT_EXPIRY_DATE(0, "expire", &expire,
>> + N_("show working trees that is candidate to be pruned older than <time>")),
>
> Perhaps:
>
> "add 'prunable' annotation to worktrees older than <time>"
>
Make sense.
>> OPT_END()
>> };
>>
>> + expire = TIME_MAX;
>
> Good, this mirrors how prune() initializes this variable.
--
Thanks
Rafael
