"John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: John Cai <johncai86@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> In order to allow users to use one executable for multiple hooks,
> provide a GIT_HOOK variable that is set to the hook event that triggered
> it.
I agree it would be handy to give hooks to play multiple roles by
dispatching on its name, just like our "git" potty can dispatch
built-ins when called "git-foo".
I do not think GIT_HOOK is a good name for the environment variable
that is used for that purpose, though. It is easily mistaken as if
end users can set GIT_HOOK environment themselves to point at a
program and cause "git" to run it whenever it may want to run any
hook, for example. IOW, the name is overly broad.
How about calling it with a name with "HOOK" and "NAME" in it?
> diff --git a/t/t1800-hook.sh b/t/t1800-hook.sh
> index 26ed5e11bc8..a22c1a82a5e 100755
> --- a/t/t1800-hook.sh
> +++ b/t/t1800-hook.sh
> @@ -38,6 +38,18 @@ test_expect_success 'git hook run: basic' '
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'git hook run: $GIT_HOOK' '
> + test_hook test-hook <<-EOF &&
> + printenv GIT_HOOK
> + EOF
This will introduce the first hit from "git grep printenv".
It is not even in POSIX. Do we absolutely need to?
Perhaps
echo "$GIT_HOOK"
is sufficient, or if you want to distinguish an unset and set to
empty string:
if test "${GIT_HOOK+set}" = "set"
then
echo "GIT_HOOK is set to '$GIT_HOOK'"
else
echo "GIT_HOOK is unset"
exit 1
fi
may be another way.
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + test-hook
> + EOF
For one-liner,
echo test-hook >expect &&
should be a more compact and equally understandable way to write this.
> + git hook run test-hook 2>actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
