Re: sub-fetches discard --ipv4|6 option

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:50:25PM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote:
> 
> > > So your patch above looks quite sensible (modulo useful bits like a
> > > signoff and maybe a test, though I guess the impact of those options
> > > is probably hard to cover in our tests).
> > 
> > I tried to come up with one, but (aside from rather pointless checking of
> > option presence in the trace output) failed to.
> > 
> > Or may be precisely this could be the point of the test: just do a fetch with
> > all options we intend to pass down to sub-fetches and check that they are
> > indeed present in the invocation of fetch --all/--multiple/--recurse-submodules?
> 
> Unfortunately I don't think that accomplishes much, since the main bug
> we're worried about is missing options. And it would require somebody
> adding the new options to the test, at which point you could just assume
> they would add it to add_options_to_argv().
> 
> Though I guess we can automatically get the list of options these days.
> So perhaps something like:
> 
>   subopts=
>   for opt in $(git fetch --git-completion-helper)

> Except that doesn't quite work, because the parent fetch will complain
> about nonsense values (e.g., --filter=1). So it would probably need a
> bit more manual intelligence to cover those options. It looks like some
> options are mutually exclusive, too (--deepen/--depth), so maybe we'd
> need to run an individual "fetch --all" for each option.
> 
> I dunno. It's getting pretty complicated. :)

> > > It is rather unfortunate that anybody adding new fetch options needs to
> > > remember to (maybe) add them to add_options_to_argv() themselves.
> > 
> > Maybe make add_options_to_argv to go through builtin_fetch_options[] and copy
> > the options with a special marker if they were provided?
> > And use the word "recursive" in help text as the marker :)
> 
> Yeah, that would solve the duplication problem. We could probably add a
> "recursive" bit to the parse-options flag variable. Even if
> parse-options itself doesn't use it, it could be a convenience for
> callers like this one. It is a little inconvenient to set flags there,
> just because it usually means ditching our wrapper macros in favor of a
> raw struct declaration.