Thanks for doing this. I've been meaning to write some similar code for years and never quite got around to it. So maybe my opinion shouldn't be worth much :/. On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:24:29 +0000 "Tao Klerks via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Make the changelist-description- and user-fullname-handling code > python-runtime-agnostic, introducing three "strategies" selectable via > config: > - 'legacy', behaving as previously under python2, > - 'strict', behaving as previously under python3, and > - 'fallback', favoring utf-8 but supporting a secondary encoding when > utf-8 decoding fails, and finally replacing remaining unmappable > bytes. I was thinking about making the config option be a list of encodings to try. So the options you've given map something like this: - "legacy" -> "raw" - "strict" -> "utf8" - "fallback" -> "utf8 cp1252" (or whatever is configured) This doesn't handle the case of using a replacement character, but in reality I suspect that fallback encoding will always be a legacy 8bit codec anyway. I think what you've proposed is fine too, I'm not sure what would end up being easier to understand. > * Does it make sense to make "fallback" the default decoding > strategy in python3? This is definitely a change in behavior, but I > believe for the better; failing with "we defaulted to strict, but you > can run again with this other option if you want it to work" seems > unkind, only making sense if we thought fallback to cp1252 would be > wrong in a substantial proportion of cases... The only issue I can see with changing the default is that it might lead to a surprising loss of data for someone migrating to git. Maybe print a warning the first time git-p4 encounters something that can't be decoded as UTF-8, but then continue with the fallback to cp1252? > * Is it OK to duplicate the bulk of the testing code across > t9835-git-p4-metadata-encoding-python2.sh and > t9836-git-p4-metadata-encoding-python3.sh? > * Is it OK to explicitly call "git-p4.py" in tests, rather than > the build output "git-p4", in order to be able to select the python > runtime on a per-test basis? Is there a better approach? I tried to find a nicer way to do this and failed. > * Is the naming of the strategies appropriate? Should the default > python2 strategy be called something less opinionated, like > "passthrough"? I think that "passthrough" or "raw" would be more descriptive names. The changes to git-p4 itself look good to me. I think that dealing with bytes more and strings less will be good going forward.
