On 2021-05-16 21:53, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> As die() is end-user facing, you'd probably want
>
> die(_("--path-format requires an argument"));
>
> We do have untranslated die() nearby for the same option, which may
> want to be cleaned up either in a preliminary patch, or in this same
> patch as an unrelated fix "while we are at it".
I would not mind preparing a preliminary patch that cleans up all
untranslated user-facing calls to die(). My editor finds 15 of those in
rev-parse.c, and I think they all qualify.
If you'd rather not touch unrelated code paths I'll instead include it
in v2 as an unrelated fix in the same commit.
> The above is certainly worth testing for, but if we ever upgrade the
> command line parser of "rev-parse" to be compatible with the parser
> based on the parse-options API to allow both "--opt=val" and "--opt
> val", it will start to fail for an entirely different reason, namely
> "--show-toplevel" will be taken as the argument to "--path-format",
> and we'd get "unknown argument to --path-format". So it might be
> prudent to test both, i.e.
>
> test_must_fail git rev-parse --path-format --show-toplevel &&
> test_must_fail git rev-parse --show-toplevel --path-format
I think I initially went for "--path-format --show-toplevel" because I
was under the assumption that --path-format needs another option it can
modify. It seems that this is not the case, so wouldn't it be simpler
here to do the following instead:
test_must_fail git rev-parse --path-format
That way we do not have to worry about subsequent changes to other,
unrelated, options.
--
Wolfgang
