On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:29:25AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Joakim Petersen <joak-pet@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 09/06/2022 11:03, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > >> This patch seems to break colorization when __git_ps1() is invoked > >> from $PROMPT_COMMAND: > >> ~/src/git (master)$ echo $PROMPT_COMMAND > >> __git_ps1 "\[\e]0;\w - Terminal\a\e[01;32m\]\h\[\e[01;34m\] \w" "\[\e[01;34m\]\$\[\e[00m\] " " \[\e[01;34m\](%s\[\e[01;34m\])" > >> ~/src/git (master)$ git checkout 9470605a1b > >> HEAD is now at 9470605a1b git-prompt: make colourization consistent > >> ~/src/git ((9470605a1b...))$ source contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh > >> ~/src/git (\[\e[31m\](9470605a1b...)\[\e[0m\])$ # uh-oh > >> ~/src/git (\[\e[31m\](9470605a1b...)\[\e[0m\])$ git checkout 9470605a1b^ > >> Previous HEAD position was 9470605a1b git-prompt: make colourization consistent > >> HEAD is now at 2668e3608e Sixth batch > >> ~/src/git (\[\e[31m\](2668e3608e...)\[\e[0m\])$ source contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh > >> ~/src/git ((2668e3608e...))$ # Looks good. > >> > > > > While I did test this on my own prompt for v6 (which is identical to v7 > > in terms of code) and not see any breakage, I have the same issue with > > v7. Maybe I forgot to re-source the changed git-prompt.sh. Either way, > > The issue stems from $b being wrapped in $__git_ps1_branch_name and then > > back into itself after colouring. Moving this wrapping to before colour > > is applied fixes this. I will submit a v8 shortly. > > As the topic is already in 'next' (and presumably that is how SZEDER > noticed the breakage), Indeed. I usually use a custom git built from 'next' with a couple of my forever-WIP topics merged on top, and I just happened to build and deploy a version with this patch already merged the other day, with the additional stroke of luck that I opened a new terminal window (what I normally rarely do) whose shell sourced the buggy prompt script. I did notice this patch being discussed on the ML, and found the amount of changes to the expected output in the tests somewhat suspicious, but, alas, haven't managed to take a closer look before the patch went into 'next'. Still hasn't, actually, but FWIW Joakim's fix (as 0e5d9ef395 in 'seen') does work for me. Thanks, Gábor
