Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> +void git_config_push_env(const char *spec)
> +{
> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> + const char *env_name;
> + const char *env_value;
> +
> + env_name = strrchr(spec, '=');
> + if (!env_name)
> + die(_("invalid config format: %s"), spec);
> + env_name++;
> + if (!*env_name)
> + die(_("missing value for --config-env"));
If reporting the name of the configuration variable, for which we
checked an environment variable, is worth doing in the !env_value
case below, shouldn't we be doing the same here, too? I.e.
die(_("missing environment variable name in %s", spec));;
or something to complain against "git --config-env foo="?
> + env_value = getenv(env_name);
> + if (!env_value)
> + die(_("missing environment variable '%s' for configuration '%.*s'"),
> + env_name, (int)(env_name - spec - 1), spec);
> +test_expect_success 'git --config-env=key=envvar support' '
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + value
> + value
> + false
> + EOF
> + {
> + env ENVVAR=value git --config-env=core.name=ENVVAR config core.name &&
> + env ENVVAR=value git --config-env=foo.CamelCase=ENVVAR config foo.camelcase &&
> + env ENVVAR= git --config-env=foo.flag=ENVVAR config --bool foo.flag
These "env " prefixes are not wrong per-se but are unnecessary. The
same for the rest of this patch.
> + } >actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'git --config-env fails with invalid parameters' '
> + test_must_fail git --config-env=foo.flag config --bool foo.flag 2>error &&
> + test_i18ngrep "invalid config format" error &&
> + test_must_fail git --config-env=foo.flag= config --bool foo.flag 2>error &&
> + test_i18ngrep "missing value for --config-env" error &&
> + test_must_fail git --config-env=foo.flag=NONEXISTENT config --bool foo.flag 2>error &&
How are we making sure
$ NONEXISTENT=True make test
is not what the end-user is running?
sane_unset X &&
test_must_fail git --config-env foo.flag=X config --bool foo.flag
or something along that line, perhaps?
