Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 29 2022, Glen Choo via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> "git branch --set-upstream-to" behaves differently when advice is >> enabled/disabled: >> >> | | error prefix | exit code | >> |-----------------+--------------+-----------| >> | advice enabled | error: | 1 | >> | advice disabled | fatal: | 128 | >> >> Make both cases consistent by using die_message() when advice is >> enabled (this was first proposed in [1]). >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/211210.86ee6ldwlc.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Thanks for following up on this :) :) >> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> branch.c | 5 +++-- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c >> index 133e6047bc6..4a8796489c7 100644 >> --- a/branch.c >> +++ b/branch.c >> @@ -389,9 +389,10 @@ static void dwim_branch_start(struct repository *r, const char *start_name, >> if (get_oid_mb(start_name, &oid)) { >> if (explicit_tracking) { >> if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_SET_UPSTREAM_FAILURE)) { >> - error(_(upstream_missing), start_name); >> + int code = die_message(_(upstream_missing), >> + start_name); >> advise(_(upstream_advice)); >> - exit(1); >> + exit(code); >> } >> die(_(upstream_missing), start_name); >> } > > This is really close to being much better, i.e. we can now just do this > (this is on top of your branch): > > diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c > index eb231b950bb..5b648cb27ed 100644 > --- a/branch.c > +++ b/branch.c > @@ -342,8 +342,6 @@ static int validate_remote_tracking_branch(char *ref) > > static const char upstream_not_branch[] = > N_("cannot set up tracking information; starting point '%s' is not a branch"); > -static const char upstream_missing[] = > -N_("the requested upstream branch '%s' does not exist"); > static const char upstream_advice[] = > N_("\n" > "If you are planning on basing your work on an upstream\n" > @@ -388,13 +386,11 @@ static void dwim_branch_start(struct repository *r, const char *start_name, > real_ref = NULL; > if (get_oid_mb(start_name, &oid)) { > if (explicit_tracking) { > - if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_SET_UPSTREAM_FAILURE)) { > - int code = die_message(_(upstream_missing), > - start_name); > - advise(_(upstream_advice)); > - exit(code); > - } > - die(_(upstream_missing), start_name); > + int code = die_message(_("the requested upstream branch '%s' does not exist"), > + start_name); > + advise_if_enabled(ADVICE_SET_UPSTREAM_FAILURE, > + _(upstream_advice)); > + exit(code); > } > die(_("not a valid object name: '%s'"), start_name); > } > > I.e. the only reason we needed to mention upstream_missing multiple > times is because we didn't have something like die_message() before, now > we can just skip that other "die" entirely. Oh, good point. Yeah I like this better, I'll do that. > The advise_if_enabled() might be worthwhile to change while at it, maybe > not. I think it's worthwhile; this does exactly what we want. I would have used it if I had known it existed. > > But also useful, is that we can now simply inline the "upstream_missing" > string, which will give us type checks for the printf format. The reason > we had a variable before was also because of the lack of die_message()> > > I notice that we can do likewise with the advice itself, and with > "upstream_not_branch" if we either make that a "goto", or add a trivial > helper function. Interesting, I hadn't considered type checking. So in general we prefer to inline the strings and not use variables? I'll keep that in mind.
