Re: [PATCH 1/2] config: add options to list only variable names
- From
SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
- Date
- May 27, 2015, 21:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150527233429.Horde.PBcL7R4evwj_kC7y78ZSIA2@webmail.informatik.kit.edu>
- In-Reply-To
- <20150527210438.GB22815@peff.net>
Quoting Jeff King <peff@peff.net>:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:07:19PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > >> Help the completion script by introducing the '--list-names' and >> '--get-names-regexp' options, the "names-only" equivalents of '--list' and >> '--get-regexp', so it doesn't have to separate variable names from their >> values anymore. > > Thanks, this sounds like the best solution. It should be a tiny bit more > efficient, too, though I doubt it matters much in practice. > >> -'git config' [<file-option>] [-z|--null] -l | --list >> +'git config' [<file-option>] [-z|--null] -l | --list | --list-name > > s/list-name/&s/, to match the code (and your commit message).
And note how I added an extra 's' to the other option in the commit message!
Show 25 quoted lines
>> cat > expect << EOF >> +beta.noindent >> +nextsection.nonewline >> +123456.a123 >> +version.1.2.3eX.alpha >> +EOF >> + >> +test_expect_success 'working --list-names' ' >> + git config --list-names > output && >> + test_cmp expect output >> +' >> + >> +cat > expect << EOF > > We usually avoid the extra space after redirection operators. But we > also usually match existing code. I'm not sure which is more evil in > this case. ;) > >> +test_expect_success '--get-name-regexp' ' >> + git config --get-name-regexp in >output && >> + test_cmp expect output >> +' > > This one is the odd man out if you are following existing style, > though.
Heh, in both cases I simply copied the existing "name-less" test, and only adjusted the expected output and the name of the option to test. :)
Will reroll.
Gábor