Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] config: include file if remote URL matches a glob

From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2022, 18:58 UTC
Message-ID: <20220110185830.1115343-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BF+_33zR-vwh-tMTG=vxuah5jyuJVXssa-vAH51qdsrDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

Show 23 quoted lines

> > +test_expect_success 'includeIf.hasconfig:remote.*.url' '
> > +       git init hasremoteurlTest &&
> > +       test_when_finished "rm -rf hasremoteurlTest" &&
> > +
> > +       cat >include-this <<-\EOF &&
> > +       [user]
> > +               this = this-is-included
> > +       EOF
> > +       cat >dont-include-that <<-\EOF &&
> > +       [user]
> > +               that = that-is-not-included
> > +       EOF
> > +       cat >>hasremoteurlTest/.git/config <<-EOF &&
> > +       [includeIf "hasconfig:remote.*.url:foo"]
> > +               path = "$(pwd)/include-this"
> > +       [includeIf "hasconfig:remote.*.url:bar"]
> > +               path = "$(pwd)/dont-include-that"
> > +       [remote "foo"]
> > +               url = foo
> 
> Which "foo" is relevant here?  The remote name, or the url value?
> Could they be given different values so that the testcase is a bit
> easier to read and understand?

Thanks for taking a look. Sorry for the late reply - I just got back from vacation.

This is a good point - I'll change one of them.

Show 14 quoted lines

> > +test_expect_success 'includeIf.hasconfig:remote.*.url respects last-config-wins' '
> > +       git init hasremoteurlTest &&
> > +       test_when_finished "rm -rf hasremoteurlTest" &&
> > +
> > +       cat >include-two-three <<-\EOF &&
> > +       [user]
> > +               two = included-config
> > +               three = included-config
> > +       EOF
> > +       cat >>hasremoteurlTest/.git/config <<-EOF &&
> > +       [remote "foo"]
> > +               url = foo
> 
> ...similarly here.

Noted.

> The testcases are very helpful.  I found myself confused when reading
> just the documentation about how it would be used.  Perhaps an example
> or two should be added to the documentation?

Will do. I notice that there is a section with examples - I'll add it there.