On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:59:51AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > +static int list(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > +{
> > + struct list_head *head, *pos;
> > + const char *hookname = NULL;
> > + struct strbuf hookdir_annotation = STRBUF_INIT;
> > +
> > + struct option list_options[] = {
> > + OPT_END(),
> > + };
> > +
> > + argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, list_options,
> > + builtin_hook_list_usage, 0);
> > +
> > + if (argc < 1)
> > + usage_msg_opt(_("You must specify a hook event name to list."),
> > + builtin_hook_list_usage, list_options);
> > +
> > + hookname = argv[0];
> > +
> > + head = hook_list(hookname);
> > +
> > + if (list_empty(head)) {
>
> The same "can't hook_list() signal an error by returning NULL?"
> comment applies here.
>
> head = hook_list(hookname);
> if (!head)
> die(_("no such hook '%s'"), hookname);
>
> or something?
>
> > + printf(_("no commands configured for hook '%s'\n"),
> > + hookname);
> > + return 0;
>
> If it is a normally expected state that there is no hook for the
> given name, signalling success by returning 0 here may be sensible,
> but then the message should at least go to the standard error stream
> to leave the standard output empty, so that a caller can reasonably
> do something like
>
> for path in $(git hooks list "$1")
> do
> ls -l "$path"
> done
>
> If we really want to show such a message, perhaps
>
> if (list_empty(head)) {
> if (!quiet)
> warning(_("no commands configured"));
> return 0;
> }
>
> The normal display just shows the path without saying "command %s
> will run for hook %s"; the warning probably should do the same.
>
> Having said that, if it truly is a normal and expected state that no
> hook is defined for the given name, I actually think there should be
> no message.
Ah, I think you are saying "either return an error code and be chatty if you
want, or return an empty list and a success code, but pick one". Makes
sense to me.
No message + well-defined return code sounds fine. I'll do that.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + list_for_each(pos, head) {
> > + struct hook *item = list_entry(pos, struct hook, list);
> > + item = list_entry(pos, struct hook, list);
> > + if (item)
> > + printf("%s\n", item->hook_path);
> > + }
>
> > diff --git a/hook.c b/hook.c
> > index 37f682c6d8..2714b63473 100644
> > --- a/hook.c
> > +++ b/hook.c
> > @@ -96,22 +96,20 @@ int hook_exists(const char *name)
> > struct list_head* hook_list(const char* hookname)
> > {
> > struct list_head *hook_head = xmalloc(sizeof(struct list_head));
> > + const char *hook_path = find_hook(hookname);
> > +
> >
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(hook_head);
> >
> > if (!hookname)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > - if (have_git_dir()) {
> > - const char *hook_path = find_hook(hookname);
> > -
> > - /* Add the hook from the hookdir */
> > - if (hook_path) {
> > - struct hook *to_add = xmalloc(sizeof(*to_add));
> > - to_add->hook_path = hook_path;
> > - to_add->feed_pipe_cb_data = NULL;
> > - list_add_tail(&to_add->list, hook_head);
> > - }
> > + /* Add the hook from the hookdir */
> > + if (hook_path) {
> > + struct hook *to_add = xmalloc(sizeof(*to_add));
> > + to_add->hook_path = hook_path;
> > + to_add->feed_pipe_cb_data = NULL;
> > + list_add_tail(&to_add->list, hook_head);
> > }
>
> I do not think this belongs to the step to add "list" command. The
> log message does not explain or justify why have-git-dir goes away,
> either.
Ah, sure.
It seems like I also didn't update the documentation for 'git hook'
command during this commit. Will fix that as well.
