It could be useful to Cc the author of that commit since it’s so
recent. Like an FYI.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, at 05:32, Dragan Simic wrote:
> 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.
I don’t think speculating on why the bug is still there improves the
commit message.
This paragraph could perhaps be rewritten to
“ Fix a bug from e0d7db7423a (format-patch: --rfc honors what
--subject-prefix sets, 2023-08-30) that allows --rfc and -k options
to be specified together when executing "git format-patch".
The extra sentence in the original doesn’t really explain anything more
about the commit. Except the “eight months ago”, but here I’ve used the
“reference” style (not the Linux-style) which contains the date.
> 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.
I.e. add a regression test. Pretty standard.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/log.c | 5 ++++-
> t/t4014-format-patch.sh | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
> index c0a8bb95e983..e5a238f1cf2c 100644
> --- 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 (cover_from_description_arg)
> cover_from_description_mode =
> parse_cover_from_description(cover_from_description_arg);
>
> - if (rfc)
> + /* Also mark the subject prefix as modified, for later checks */
I think the code speaks for itself in this case.
> + if (rfc) {
> strbuf_insertstr(&sprefix, 0, "RFC ");
> + subject_prefix = 1;
> + }
>
> if (reroll_count) {
> strbuf_addf(&sprefix, " v%s", reroll_count);
> diff --git a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> index e37a1411ee24..e22c4ac34e6e 100755
> --- a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> +++ b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> @@ -1397,6 +1397,10 @@ test_expect_success '--rfc is argument order
> independent' '
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> +test_expect_success '--rfc and -k cannot be used together' '
> + test_must_fail git format-patch -1 --stdout --rfc -k >patch
I don’t understand why you redirect to `patch` if you only check the
exit code. (I don’t expect any stdout since it will fail.)
Although it would be nice with a text comparison or grep on the stderr
output to make sure that the command died for the expected reason. But I
haven’t read the associated code.
> +'
> +
> test_expect_success '--from=ident notices bogus ident' '
> test_must_fail git format-patch -1 --stdout --from=foo >patch
> '
