Re: [PATCH] sequencer: allow disabling conflict advice

> Hi Junio,
> 
> Le 2024-03-03 à 17:57, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
>> "Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>  	if (msg) {
>>> -		advise("%s\n", msg);
>>> +		advise_if_enabled(ADVICE_SEQUENCER_CONFLICT, "%s\n", msg);
>>>  		/*
>>>  		 * A conflict has occurred but the porcelain
>>>  		 * (typically rebase --interactive) wants to take care
>>
>> This hunk is good.  The block removes the CHERRY_PICK_HEAD after
>> giving this advice and then returns.
>>
>>> @@ -480,22 +480,25 @@ static void print_advice(struct repository *r, int show_hint,
>>>  
>>>  	if (show_hint) {
>>>  		if (opts->no_commit)
>>> -			advise(_("after resolving the conflicts, mark the corrected paths\n"
>>> -				 "with 'git add <paths>' or 'git rm <paths>'"));
>>> +			advise_if_enabled(ADVICE_SEQUENCER_CONFLICT,
>>> +					  _("after resolving the conflicts, mark the corrected paths\n"
>>> +					    "with 'git add <paths>' or 'git rm <paths>'"));
>>>  		else if (opts->action == REPLAY_PICK)
>>> -			advise(_("After resolving the conflicts, mark them with\n"
>>> -				 "\"git add/rm <pathspec>\", then run\n"
>>> -				 "\"git cherry-pick --continue\".\n"
>>> -				 "You can instead skip this commit with \"git cherry-pick --skip\".\n"
>>> -				 "To abort and get back to the state before \"git cherry-pick\",\n"
>>> -				 "run \"git cherry-pick --abort\"."));
>>> +			advise_if_enabled(ADVICE_SEQUENCER_CONFLICT,
>>> +					  _("After resolving the conflicts, mark them with\n"
>>> +					    "\"git add/rm <pathspec>\", then run\n"
>>> +					    "\"git cherry-pick --continue\".\n"
>>> +					    "You can instead skip this commit with \"git cherry-pick --skip\".\n"
>>> +					    "To abort and get back to the state before \"git cherry-pick\",\n"
>>> +					    "run \"git cherry-pick --abort\"."));
>>>  		else if (opts->action == REPLAY_REVERT)
>>> -			advise(_("After resolving the conflicts, mark them with\n"
>>> -				 "\"git add/rm <pathspec>\", then run\n"
>>> -				 "\"git revert --continue\".\n"
>>> -				 "You can instead skip this commit with \"git revert --skip\".\n"
>>> -				 "To abort and get back to the state before \"git revert\",\n"
>>> -				 "run \"git revert --abort\"."));
>>> +			advise_if_enabled(ADVICE_SEQUENCER_CONFLICT,
>>> +					  _("After resolving the conflicts, mark them with\n"
>>> +					    "\"git add/rm <pathspec>\", then run\n"
>>> +					    "\"git revert --continue\".\n"
>>> +					    "You can instead skip this commit with \"git revert --skip\".\n"
>>> +					    "To abort and get back to the state before \"git revert\",\n"
>>> +					    "run \"git revert --abort\"."));
>>>  		else
>>>  			BUG("unexpected pick action in print_advice()");
>>>  	}
>>
>> This hunk can be improved.  If I were doing this patch, I probably
>> would have just done
>>
>> -	if (show_hint) {
>> +	if (show_hint && advice_enabled(ADVICE_SEQUENCER_CONFLICT)) {
>>
>> and nothing else, and doing so would keep the block easier to extend
>> and maintain in the future.
>>
>> Because the block is all about "show_hint", we have code to print
>> advice messages and nothing else in it currently, and more
>> importantly, we will not add anything other than code to print
>> advice messages in it.  Because of that, skipping everything when
>> ADVICE_SEQUENCER_CONFLICT is not enabled will not cause problems
>> (unlike the earlier hunk---which will break if we added "&&
>> advice_enabled()" to "if (msg)").  That way, when somebody teaches
>> this code a new kind of opts->action, they do not have to say
>> "advice_if_enabled(ADVICE_SEQUENCER_CONFLICT()"; they can just use
>> "advise()".
> 
> That's true and makes the changes simpler, thank you for the suggestion.
> I'll do that in v2.