On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:03:08AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 02:37:54AM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote: > > In 26998ed2a2 (add-patch: response to unknown command, 2024-04-29) we > > introduced an error message that displays the invalid command entered by > > the user. > > > > We process a line received from the user, but we only accept > > single-character commands. > > > > To avoid confusion, include in the error message only the first > > character received. > > I'm a bit on the edge here. Is it really less confusing if we confront > the user with a command that they have never even provided in the first > place? I think so, by giving the user what we find wrong and implicitly telling them what it is. > Shouldn't we rather fix that and make the accepted > answers more strict, such that if the response is longer than a single > character we point that out? That's reasonable, but maybe we're going to break someone's workflow? At any rate, my main goal is to avoid the '%s' in the message. > > Patrick
