Jean-Noël Avila <avila.jn@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Putting my documentation/translator hat:
>
> Le 29/02/2024 à 20:07, Sergey Organov a écrit :
>> What -n actually does in addition to its documented behavior is
>> ignoring of configuration variable clean.requireForce, that makes
>> sense provided -n prevents files removal anyway.
>>
>> So, first, document this in the manual, and then modify implementation
>> to make this more explicit in the code.
>>
>> Improved implementation also stops to share single internal variable
>> 'force' between command-line -f option and configuration variable
>> clean.requireForce, resulting in more clear logic.
>>
>> The error messages now do not mention -n as well, as it seems
>> unnecessary and does not reflect clarified implementation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/git-clean.txt | 2 ++
>> builtin/clean.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-clean.txt b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> index 69331e3f05a1..662eebb85207 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ OPTIONS
>> -n::
>> --dry-run::
>> Don't actually remove anything, just show what would be done.
>> + Configuration variable clean.requireForce is ignored, as
>> + nothing will be deleted anyway.
>
> Please use backticks for options, configuration and environment names:
> `clean.requireForce`
I did consider this. However, existing text already has exactly this one
unquoted, so I just did the same. Hopefully it will be fixed altogether
later, or are you positive I better resend the patch with quotes?
>>
>> -q::
>> --quiet::
>> diff --git a/builtin/clean.c b/builtin/clean.c
>> index d90766cad3a0..fcc50d08ee9b 100644
>> --- a/builtin/clean.c
>> +++ b/builtin/clean.c
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>> #include "help.h"
>> #include "prompt.h"
>>
>> -static int force = -1; /* unset */
>> +static int require_force = -1; /* unset */
>> static int interactive;
>> static struct string_list del_list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
>> static unsigned int colopts;
>> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int git_clean_config(const char *var, const char *value,
>> }
>>
>> if (!strcmp(var, "clean.requireforce")) {
>> - force = !git_config_bool(var, value);
>> + require_force = git_config_bool(var, value);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> {
>> int i, res;
>> int dry_run = 0, remove_directories = 0, quiet = 0, ignored = 0;
>> - int ignored_only = 0, config_set = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
>> + int ignored_only = 0, force = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
>> int rm_flags = REMOVE_DIR_KEEP_NESTED_GIT;
>> struct strbuf abs_path = STRBUF_INIT;
>> struct dir_struct dir = DIR_INIT;
>> @@ -946,21 +946,21 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> };
>>
>> git_config(git_clean_config, NULL);
>> - if (force < 0)
>> - force = 0;
>> - else
>> - config_set = 1;
>>
>> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, builtin_clean_usage,
>> 0);
>>
>> - if (!interactive && !dry_run && !force) {
>> - if (config_set)
>> - die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -i, -n, nor -f given; "
>> + /* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no sense */
>> + if(dry_run)
>> + require_force = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!force && !interactive) {
>> + if (require_force > 0)
>> + die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> + "refusing to clean"));
>> + else if (require_force < 0)
>> + die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> "refusing to clean"));
>> - else
>> - die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -i, -n, nor -f given;"
>> - " refusing to clean"));
>> }
>>
>
> The last two cases can be coalesced into a single case (the last one),
> because the difference in the messages does not bring more information
> to the user.
Did you misread the patch? There are only 2 cases here, the last (third)
one is marked with '-' (removed). Too easy to misread this, I'd say. New
code is:
if (require_force > 0)
die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
"refusing to clean"));
else if (require_force < 0)
die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
and is basically unchanged from the original, except reference to '-n' has been
removed. Btw, is now comma needed after -f, and isn't it better to
substitute ':' for ';'?
Thank you for review!
-- Sergey Organov
