On 2024-04-17 08:15, Eric Sunshine wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014
Reviewers assume that a conscientious patch author will add tests when
appropriate, so stating that you did so is unnecessary. Thus it's safe
to omit "and add a test to t4014" without negatively impacting
comprehension of the subject.
format-patch: ensure --rfc and -k are mutually exclusive
Makes sense, but the previous authors obviously weren't diligent
enough to include such a test, which presumably made the fixed bug
remain undetected for so long, so I wanted to put some emphasis on
the addition of a test.
Fix a bug that allows --rfc and -k options to be specified together
when
executing "git format-patch". This bug was introduced back in the
commit
e0d7db7423a9 ("format-patch: --rfc honors what --subject-prefix
sets"),
about eight months ago, but it has remained undetected so far,
presumably
because of no associated test coverage.
Everything starting at "...about eight months" through the end of the
paragraph could be easily dropped. Reviewers understand implicitly
that the bug went undiscovered due to lack of test coverage.
I have no problems with dropping that part, but IMHO that's nitpicking.
Also, dropping it would delete some of the context that people might
find useful later.
Add a new test to the t4014 that covers the mutual exclusivity of the
--rfc
and -k command-line options for "git format-patch", for future
coverage.
Similarly, no need for this paragraph. As a conscientious patch
author, reviewers assume that you added the test, so this paragraph
adds no information. Also, the body of the patch provides this
information clearly without it having to be stated here.
With all the respect, I think that having that paragraph is actually
good, because explaining it clearly provides good context for the
repository history and people reading it later.
Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
@@ -2050,8 +2050,11 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char
**argv, const char *prefix)
- if (rfc)
+ /* Also mark the subject prefix as modified, for later checks
*/
+ if (rfc) {
strbuf_insertstr(&sprefix, 0, "RFC ");
+ subject_prefix = 1;
+ }
I'm not sure that this new comment (/* Also mark... */) adds any value
beyond what the code itself already says. It may actually be confusing
with its current placement. Had you placed it immediately above the
`stubject_prefix = 1` line, it would have been more understandable,
but still probably unnecessary since anyone studying this code is
going to have to understand the purpose of `subject_prefix` anyhow.
Setting such flags should actually be performed in a callback,
but in this case creating a callback isn't warranted, IMHO. Thus,
that comment tries to explain why a flag is set out of place.
I have no objections against removing this comment, if you find
it doing more harm than good.
I didn't place it immediately above the relevant line because it
also applies to the adjacent block for the --resend option, and I
wanted to reduce the code churn that would result from placing it
immediately before the relevant line, and moving it a couple of
lines above just a couple of patches later.
At any rate, I doubt that any of these review comments on their own is
worth a reroll.
Well, I need to split the series anyway, so the v2 is pretty much
inevitable.
