Hi Ævar, On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 20 2021, Denton Liu wrote: > > > The $subcommand case statement in _git_stash() is quite repetitive. > > Consolidate the cases together into one catch-all case to reduce the > > repetition. > > > > Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 21 ++------------------- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash > > index 30c9a97616..7bce9a0112 100644 > > --- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash > > +++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash > > @@ -3032,21 +3032,6 @@ _git_stash () > > fi > > > > case "$subcommand,$cur" in > > - push,--*) > > - __gitcomp_builtin stash_push > > - ;; > > - save,--*) > > - __gitcomp_builtin stash_save > > - ;; > > - pop,--*) > > - __gitcomp_builtin stash_pop > > - ;; > > - apply,--*) > > - __gitcomp_builtin stash_apply > > - ;; > > - drop,--*) > > - __gitcomp_builtin stash_drop > > - ;; > > list,--*) > > # NEEDSWORK: can we somehow unify this with the options in _git_log() and _git_show() > > __gitcomp_builtin stash_list "$__git_log_common_options $__git_diff_common_options" > > @@ -3054,8 +3039,8 @@ _git_stash () > > show,--*) > > __gitcomp_builtin stash_show "$__git_diff_common_options" > > ;; > > - branch,--*) > > - __gitcomp_builtin stash_branch > > + *,--*) > > + __gitcomp_builtin "stash_$subcommand" > > ;; > > branch,*) > > if [ $cword -eq $((__git_cmd_idx+2)) ]; then > > @@ -3069,8 +3054,6 @@ _git_stash () > > __gitcomp_nl "$(__git stash list \ > > | sed -n -e 's/:.*//p')" > > ;; > > - *) > > - ;; > > esac > > } > > One might think that this introduces a logic error in "git stash > doesnotexist" now dispatching to a non-existing "stash_doesnotexist" or > something, bu tI see that earlier (omitted from context) in the function > there's an exhaustive lit of push/save/pop etc. which guards against > this, is is that correct? Yep, that's exactly correct.
