Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation

> On Friday, 1 March 2024 15:34:52 CET Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Jean-Noël Avila <avila.jn@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Putting my documentation/translator hat:
>> >
>> > Le 29/02/2024 à 20:07, Sergey Organov a écrit :
>> >> What -n actually does in addition to its documented behavior is
>> >> ignoring of configuration variable clean.requireForce, that makes
>> >> sense provided -n prevents files removal anyway.
>> >> 
>> >> So, first, document this in the manual, and then modify implementation
>> >> to make this more explicit in the code.
>> >> 
>> >> Improved implementation also stops to share single internal variable
>> >> 'force' between command-line -f option and configuration variable
>> >> clean.requireForce, resulting in more clear logic.
>> >> 
>> >> The error messages now do not mention -n as well, as it seems
>> >> unnecessary and does not reflect clarified implementation.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  Documentation/git-clean.txt |  2 ++
>> >>  builtin/clean.c             | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>> >>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-clean.txt b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> >> index 69331e3f05a1..662eebb85207 100644
>> >> --- a/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> >> +++ b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> >> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ OPTIONS
>> >>  -n::
>> >>  --dry-run::
>> >>  	Don't actually remove anything, just show what would be done.
>> >> +	Configuration variable clean.requireForce is ignored, as
>> >> +	nothing will be deleted anyway.
>> >
>> > Please use backticks for options, configuration and environment names:
>> > `clean.requireForce`
>> 
>> I did consider this. However, existing text already has exactly this one
>> unquoted, so I just did the same. Hopefully it will be fixed altogether
>> later, or are you positive I better resend the patch with quotes? 
>> 
>> >>  
>> >>  -q::
>> >>  --quiet::
>> >> diff --git a/builtin/clean.c b/builtin/clean.c
>> >> index d90766cad3a0..fcc50d08ee9b 100644
>> >> --- a/builtin/clean.c
>> >> +++ b/builtin/clean.c
>> >> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>> >>  #include "help.h"
>> >>  #include "prompt.h"
>> >>  
>> >> -static int force = -1; /* unset */
>> >> +static int require_force = -1; /* unset */
>> >>  static int interactive;
>> >>  static struct string_list del_list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
>> >>  static unsigned int colopts;
>> >> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int git_clean_config(const char *var, const 
> char *value,
>> >>  	}
>> >>  
>> >>  	if (!strcmp(var, "clean.requireforce")) {
>> >> -		force = !git_config_bool(var, value);
>> >> +		require_force = git_config_bool(var, value);
>> >>  		return 0;
>> >>  	}
>> >>  
>> >> @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char 
> *prefix)
>> >>  {
>> >>  	int i, res;
>> >>  	int dry_run = 0, remove_directories = 0, quiet = 0, ignored = 0;
>> >> -	int ignored_only = 0, config_set = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
>> >> +	int ignored_only = 0, force = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
>> >>  	int rm_flags = REMOVE_DIR_KEEP_NESTED_GIT;
>> >>  	struct strbuf abs_path = STRBUF_INIT;
>> >>  	struct dir_struct dir = DIR_INIT;
>> >> @@ -946,21 +946,21 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const 
> char *prefix)
>> >>  	};
>> >>  
>> >>  	git_config(git_clean_config, NULL);
>> >> -	if (force < 0)
>> >> -		force = 0;
>> >> -	else
>> >> -		config_set = 1;
>> >>  
>> >>  	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, 
> builtin_clean_usage,
>> >>  			     0);
>> >>  
>> >> -	if (!interactive && !dry_run && !force) {
>> >> -		if (config_set)
>> >> -			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and 
> neither -i, -n, nor -f given; "
>> >> +	/* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no 
> sense */
>> >> +	if(dry_run)
>> >> +		require_force = 0;
>> >> +
>> >> +	if (!force && !interactive) {
>> >> +		if (require_force > 0)
>> >> +			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and 
> neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> >> +				  "refusing to clean"));
>> >> +		else if (require_force < 0)
>> >> +			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true 
> and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> >>  				  "refusing to clean"));
>> >> -		else
>> >> -			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true 
> and neither -i, -n, nor -f given;"
>> >> -				  " refusing to clean"));
>> >>  	}
>> >>  
>> >
>> > The last two cases can be coalesced into a single case (the last one),
>> > because the difference in the messages does not bring more information
>> > to the user.
>> 
>> Did you misread the patch? There are only 2 cases here, the last (third)
>> one is marked with '-' (removed). Too easy to misread this, I'd say. New
>> code is:
>> 
>> 		if (require_force > 0)
>> 			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and 
> neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> 				  "refusing to clean"));
>> 		else if (require_force < 0)
>> 			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true 
> and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> 
>> and is basically unchanged from the original, except reference to '-n' has 
> been
>> removed. Btw, is now comma needed after -f, and isn't it better to
>> substitute ':' for ';'?
>> 
>> Thank you for review!
>> 
>> -- Sergey Organov
>> 
>> 
>
> Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted the patch. But yet, I'm not sure that
> specifying that this is the default or not is really useful. If the
> configuration was set to true, it is was a no-op. If set to false, no
> message will appear.