On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:19 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Is this a totally unwarranted rewrapping of an unrelated part of the
same document, or was there some words or phrases in this
description of the envelope-sender option that needed to be adjusted
for the introduction of sendmail-cmd option?
Yes it's just a rewrapping that I did while adding my new paragraph. The
other reviewers pointed this out as well. My mistake, I will remove this
from the next patch revision.
+--sendmail-cmd=<command>::
+ Specify a command to run to send the email. The command should
+ be compatible with `sendmail` as the arguments are passed
+ directly. The command will be executed in the shell if
+ necessary. Default is the value of `sendemail.sendmailCommand`.
+ If unspecified, and if --smtp-server is also unspecified,
+ git-send-email will search for `sendmail` in `/usr/sbin`,
+ `/usr/lib` and $PATH if such a program is available.
OK, but doesn't this also need to support '-i'?
'The command should be compatible with `sendmail`' was meant to imply
this, though I can make this more explicit.
@@ -211,13 +221,14 @@ a password is obtained using 'git-credential'.
--smtp-server=<host>::
If set, specifies the outgoing SMTP server to use (e.g.
- `smtp.example.com` or a raw IP address). Alternatively it can
- specify a full pathname of a sendmail-like program instead;
- the program must support the `-i` option. Default value can
- be specified by the `sendemail.smtpServer` configuration
- option; the built-in default is to search for `sendmail` in
- `/usr/sbin`, `/usr/lib` and $PATH if such program is
- available, falling back to `localhost` otherwise.
+ `smtp.example.com` or a raw IP address). If unspecified, and if
+ `--sendmail-cmd` is also unspecified, the default is to search
+ for `sendmail` in `/usr/sbin`, `/usr/lib` and $PATH if such a
+ program is available, falling back to `localhost` otherwise.
+
+ For backward compatibility, this option can also specify a full
+ pathname of a sendmail-like program instead; the program must
+ support the `-i` option. Prefer using `--sendmail-cmd` instead.
Drop the last sentence, if we are not going to explain why.
I do think nudging users to use the "correct" option is valuable, so I
will add some why text. Though I think adhering to the "--smtp-server
should specify a host and --sendmail-cmd specifies a command" dichotomy
is a good reason in and of itself.
@@ -1490,14 +1497,15 @@ sub send_message {
unshift (@sendmail_parameters, @smtp_server_options);
+ if (file_name_is_absolute($smtp_server)) {
+ # Preserved for backward compatibility
+ $sendmail_command ||= $smtp_server;
+ }
Hmph, I wonder if this makes the intent more clear.
if (!defined $sendmail_command && file_name_is_absolute($smtp_server)) {
$sendmail_command = $smtp_server;
}
That is, if the user gave us the command in newer form, we do not
even have to bother checking if the server is given as an absolute
pathname.
Yes I think you're right, I'll make this change.
You seem to have replaced every smtp-server="$(pwd)/ mechanically
with sendmai-cmd=\"$(pwd)/, but please make sure that we have at
least one test left that passes an absolute path to --smtp-server to
ensure that the old mechanism keeps working. A bonus point for
marking such a test that needs to be adjusted when the actual
deprecation happens (i.e. we'd likely to detect the use of absolute
path and throw a warning, so the test should notice the warning
message).
Noted, I'll add a test for this case.
Also you would want to tweak some of the --sendmail-cmd variants to
use just the command name, with and without args, to ensure that (1)
discovery on $PATH works, and (2) passing initial args works.
I did add two such tests:
diff --git a/t/t9001-send-email.sh b/t/t9001-send-email.sh
index 65b3035371..82a3efb987 100755
--- a/t/t9001-send-email.sh
+++ b/t/t9001-send-email.sh
@@ -2148,6 +2148,29 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ 'leading and trailing whitespaces are removed' '
test_cmp expected-list actual-list
'
+test_expect_success $PREREQ 'test using relative path with sendmailCommand' '
+ clean_fake_sendmail &&
+ PATH="$(pwd):$PATH" \
+ git send-email \
+ --from="Example <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>" \
+ --to=nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx \
+ --sendmail-cmd="fake.sendmail" \
+ HEAD~2 &&
+ test_path_is_file commandline1 &&
+ test_path_is_file commandline2
+'
+
+test_expect_success $PREREQ 'test using shell with sendmailCommand' '
+ clean_fake_sendmail &&
+ git send-email \
+ --from="Example <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>" \
+ --to=nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx \
+ --sendmail-cmd="[ 1 -eq 1 ] && \"$(pwd)/fake.sendmail\"" \
+ HEAD~2 &&
+ test_path_is_file commandline1 &&
+ test_path_is_file commandline2
+'
+
test_expect_success $PREREQ 'invoke hook' '
mkdir -p .git/hooks &&
Granted, the second test tests for some generic shell expression, not
passing arguments, but I think if the former works the latter ought to
as well.
Thanks for your feedback.
