Let me try again, I think my review was not good :-)
On 28/9/22 21:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> In a repository on a branch without branch description, try running
It is a bit confusing the construction "a repository on a branch
without branch description" as "branch" have "repository" inherent.
So "On a branch without description.." holds the same meaning with less
distracting words.
> The simpler solution of course introduces TOCTOU, but you are
I like that the message introduces an appropriate term that also can
be a trigger for some to learn something without distracting others.
Instead of just using: "BUG"
> fooling yourself in your own repository. Not overwriting the branch
> description on the same branch you added in another window, while
> you had this other editor open, may even be a feature ;-)
But.. do we want to implement this this way? Maybe we will have to
implement on purpose this feature in some future refactorization?
And.. the message does not make it clear the situation: if there is
a previous description, will clear; if not, will keep.
> test_expect_success 'use --edit-description' '
> + EDITOR=: git branch --edit-description &&
> + test_must_fail git config branch.main.description &&
> +
> write_script editor <<-\EOF &&
> echo "New contents" >"$1"
> EOF
>
If we want that feature, should we test for it? (do not take
the snippet as tested...):
diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh
index d5a1fc1375..aa5ee14bae 100755
--- a/t/t3200-branch.sh
+++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh
@@ -1393,6 +1393,16 @@ test_expect_success 'use --edit-description' '
EOF
EDITOR=./editor git branch --edit-description &&
echo "New contents" >expect &&
+ write_script editor <<-\EOF &&
+ if [ -z "$NA" ]; then
+ NA=description GIT_EDITOR=./$0 git branch --edit-description
+ fi
+ echo $NA >$1
+ EOF
+ EDITOR=./editor git branch --edit-description &&
+ test_must_fail git config branch.main.description &&
+ EDITOR=./editor git branch --edit-description &&
+ git config branch.main.description &&
test_cmp expect EDITOR_OUTPUT
