From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:34:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] config: add options to list only variable names
Message-ID: <20150527233429.Horde.PBcL7R4evwj_kC7y78ZSIA2@webmail.informatik.kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20150527210438.GB22815@peff.net>


Quoting Jeff King <peff@peff.net>:

> 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!

>>  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