Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] i18n: turn even more messages into "cannot be used together" ones
- From
Jean-Noël AVILA <jn.avila@free.fr>
- Date
- Dec 29, 2021, 15:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <3237737.qFR3CMiZ0V@cayenne>
- In-Reply-To
- <3fdc2585-06e6-231c-621a-b719ec5d8f46@kdbg.org>
On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 08:33:15 CET Johannes Sixt wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> Am 28.12.21 um 00:23 schrieb Jean-Noël Avila via GitGitGadget:
> > From: =?UTF-8?q?Jean-No=C3=ABl=20Avila?= <jn.avila@free.fr>
> > diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c
> > index 8677ea2348a..be0e32f69cf 100644
> > --- a/builtin/am.c
> > +++ b/builtin/am.c
> > @@ -2230,8 +2230,8 @@ static int parse_opt_show_current_patch(const struct option *opt, const char *ar
> > }
> >
> > if (resume->mode == RESUME_SHOW_PATCH && new_value != resume->sub_mode)
> > - return error(_("--show-current-patch=%s is incompatible with "
> > - "--show-current-patch=%s"),
> > + return error(_("options '--show-current-patch=%s' and '--show-current-patch=%s' "
> > + "cannot used together"),
>
> Missing "be".Thanks.
Show 17 quoted lines
>
> > arg, valid_modes[resume->sub_mode]);
> >
> > resume->mode = RESUME_SHOW_PATCH;
> > diff --git a/builtin/cat-file.c b/builtin/cat-file.c
> > index 86fc03242b8..400ceaba5e8 100644
> > --- a/builtin/cat-file.c
> > +++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
> > @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ int cmd_cat_file(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > }
> >
> > if (force_path && batch.enabled) {
> > - error("--path=<path> incompatible with --batch");
> > + error("'--path=<path>' and '--batch' cannot be used together");
>
> Missing "options" perhaps.
>Thanks.
Show 20 quoted lines
> > usage_with_options(cat_file_usage, options);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/describe.c b/builtin/describe.c
> > index fd5ba1fc604..130b87b3a34 100644
> > --- a/builtin/describe.c
> > +++ b/builtin/describe.c
> > @@ -670,9 +670,9 @@ int cmd_describe(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > }
> > describe("HEAD", 1);
> > } else if (dirty) {
> > - die(_("--dirty is incompatible with commit-ishes"));
> > + die(_("'%s' and commit-ishes cannot be used together"), "--dirty");
> > } else if (broken) {
> > - die(_("--broken is incompatible with commit-ishes"));
> > + die(_("'%s' and commit-ishes cannot be used together"), "--broken");
>
> I noticed immediately that the two texts are not the same because they
> are not aligned, but it took me a few seconds to notice the extra blank
> in the second one.Thanks.
Show 18 quoted lines
>
> > } else {
> > while (argc-- > 0)
> > describe(*argv++, argc == 0);
> > diff --git a/builtin/init-db.c b/builtin/init-db.c
> > index 546f9c595e7..b85dffbdf5c 100644
> > --- a/builtin/init-db.c
> > +++ b/builtin/init-db.c
> > @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ int cmd_init_db(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > }
> > else {
> > if (real_git_dir)
> > - die(_("--separate-git-dir incompatible with bare repository"));
> > + die(_("'--separate-git-dir' and bare repository cannot be used together"));
>
> IMO, in this case, the original text is awkward, and the transformation
> is worse because it really sounds like a mechanical replacement. I
> suggest not to do this transformation.Agreed.
Show 18 quoted lines
> >
> > test_fixup_reword_opt () {
> > test_expect_success "--fixup=reword: incompatible with $1" "
> > - echo 'fatal: reword option of --fixup is mutually exclusive with'\
> > - '--patch/--interactive/--all/--include/--only' >expect &&
> > + echo 'fatal: reword option of --fixup and'\
> > + '--patch/--interactive/--all/--include/--only'\
> > + 'cannot be used together' >expect &&
>
> On first sight, it looked significant that there are no blanks between
> "and", the single-quote, and the backslash. On second thought, the
> backslash is just a line continuation, and the blank that is needed in
> the text is inserted by "echo" because it emits its three arguments, the
> single-quoted strings', in blank-separated form. This means that there
> must not be a blank after "and" and after "--only" and before the
> single-quotes. There could be a blank before the backslash.
>
> Good.That's exactly that. I struggled for quite some time when trying to split the string and the test was failing. Very counter-intuitive, even after you understand why.
Thanks for your review and spotting the mistakes. Will reroll.
As a side note, while editing all these tests in series, i could not help but notice that there are different styles of writing them.