On Mon, Feb 15 2021, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 07:41:16PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Make use of the parse_options_concat() so we don't need to copy/paste
>> common options like --object-dir. This is inspired by a similar change
>> to "checkout" in 2087182272
>> (checkout: split options[] array in three pieces, 2019-03-29).
>>
>> A minor behavior change here is that now we're going to list both
>> --object-dir and --progress first, before we'd list --progress along
>> with other options.
>
> "Behavior change" referring only to the output of `git commit-graph -h`,
> no?
>
> Looking at the code (and understanding this whole situation a little bit
> better), I'd think that this wouldn't cause us to parse anything
> differently before or after this change, right?
Indeed, I just mean the "-h" or "--invalid-opt" output changed in the
order we show the options in.
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> builtin/commit-graph.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/commit-graph.c b/builtin/commit-graph.c
>> index baead04a03..a7718b2025 100644
>> --- a/builtin/commit-graph.c
>> +++ b/builtin/commit-graph.c
>> @@ -44,6 +44,21 @@ static struct opts_commit_graph {
>> int enable_changed_paths;
>> } opts;
>>
>> +static struct option *add_common_options(struct option *prevopts)
>> +{
>> + struct option options[] = {
>> + OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>> + N_("dir"),
>> + N_("the object directory to store the graph")),
>> + OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress,
>> + N_("force progress reporting")),
>> + OPT_END()
>> + };
>
> I'm nitpicking, but I wouldn't be sad to see this called "common"
> instead".
>
> Can't this also be declared statically?
It happens to work now to do that, but try it in builtin/checkout.c and
you'll see it blows up with a wall of "initializer element is not
constant".
Probably better to be consistent in parse_options() usage than make it
safe for that sort of use...
>> + struct option *newopts = parse_options_concat(options, prevopts);
>> + free(prevopts);
>> + return newopts;
>> +}
>> +
>> static struct object_directory *find_odb(struct repository *r,
>> const char *obj_dir)
>> {
>> @@ -75,22 +90,20 @@ static int graph_verify(int argc, const char **argv)
>> int fd;
>> struct stat st;
>> int flags = 0;
>> -
>> + struct option *options = NULL;
>> static struct option builtin_commit_graph_verify_options[] = {
>> - OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>> - N_("dir"),
>> - N_("the object directory to store the graph")),
>> OPT_BOOL(0, "shallow", &opts.shallow,
>> N_("if the commit-graph is split, only verify the tip file")),
>> - OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress, N_("force progress reporting")),
>> OPT_END(),
>> };
>> + options = parse_options_dup(builtin_commit_graph_verify_options);
>
> Another nitpick, but I'd rather see the initialization of "options" and
> its declaration be on the same line, after declaring
> builtin_commit_graph_verify_options.
As you noted in your own reply "the NULL initialization is important",
or more specifically: We're doing this dance here (and in other existing
code, e.g. checkout.c) to trampoline from the stack ot the heap.
>> + options = add_common_options(options);
>>
>> trace2_cmd_mode("verify");
>>
>> opts.progress = isatty(2);
>> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, NULL,
>> - builtin_commit_graph_verify_options,
>> + options,
>> builtin_commit_graph_verify_usage, 0);
>>
>> if (!opts.obj_dir)
>> @@ -205,11 +218,8 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv)
>> int result = 0;
>> enum commit_graph_write_flags flags = 0;
>> struct progress *progress = NULL;
>> -
>> + struct option *options = NULL;
>> static struct option builtin_commit_graph_write_options[] = {
>> - OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>> - N_("dir"),
>> - N_("the object directory to store the graph")),
>> OPT_BOOL(0, "reachable", &opts.reachable,
>> N_("start walk at all refs")),
>> OPT_BOOL(0, "stdin-packs", &opts.stdin_packs,
>> @@ -220,7 +230,6 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv)
>> N_("include all commits already in the commit-graph file")),
>> OPT_BOOL(0, "changed-paths", &opts.enable_changed_paths,
>> N_("enable computation for changed paths")),
>> - OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress, N_("force progress reporting")),
>> OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "split", &write_opts.split_flags, NULL,
>> N_("allow writing an incremental commit-graph file"),
>> PARSE_OPT_OPTARG | PARSE_OPT_NONEG,
>> @@ -236,6 +245,8 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv)
>> 0, write_option_max_new_filters),
>> OPT_END(),
>> };
>> + options = parse_options_dup(builtin_commit_graph_write_options);
>> + options = add_common_options(options);
>>
>> opts.progress = isatty(2);
>> opts.enable_changed_paths = -1;
>> @@ -249,7 +260,7 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv)
>> git_config(git_commit_graph_write_config, &opts);
>>
>> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, NULL,
>> - builtin_commit_graph_write_options,
>> + options,
>> builtin_commit_graph_write_usage, 0);
>>
>> if (opts.reachable + opts.stdin_packs + opts.stdin_commits > 1)
>> @@ -312,12 +323,8 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv)
>>
>> int cmd_commit_graph(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> {
>> - static struct option builtin_commit_graph_options[] = {
>> - OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>> - N_("dir"),
>> - N_("the object directory to store the graph")),
>> - OPT_END(),
>> - };
>> + struct option *no_options = parse_options_dup(NULL);
>
> Hmm. Why bother calling add_common_options at all here?
I assume you mean in this line just below what you quoted:
struct option *builtin_commit_graph_options = add_common_options(no_options);
Do you mean why not do the whole thing in graph_{verify,write}() and
only show the usage if we fail here?
Yeah arguably that makes more sense, but I wanted to just focus on
refactoring existing behavior & get rid of the copy/pasted options
rather than start a bigger rewrite of "maybe we shouldn't show this
rather useless help info if we die here....".
