Re: [PATCH 3/3] bisect: check for mandatory argument of 'bisect replay'
- From
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 14, 2010, 07:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTi=HCHy0q4atzVYUGO0hQ3FBigZcFDsFLv9iZ=h-@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7viq16m0tk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
>
>>> > bisect_replay () {
>>> >
>>> > + test "$#" -eq 1 || die "No logfile given"
>>> >
>>> > test -r "$1" || die "cannot read $1 for replaying"
>>> > bisect_reset
>>> > while read git bisect command rev
>>>
>>> While at it perhaps you could do something like:
>>>
>>> bisect_replay () {
>>> + test "$#" -lt 1 || die "No logfile given"
>>> + test "$#" -gt 1 || die "Too many argument. Please give only one logfile."
>>> test -r "$1" || die "cannot read $1 for replaying"
>>> bisect_reset
>>> while read git bisect command rev
>>
>> I mean:
>>
>> bisect_replay () {
>> + test "$#" -lt 1 && die "No logfile given"
>> + test "$#" -gt 1 && die "Too many argument. Please give only one logfile."
>> test -r "$1" || die "cannot read $1 for replaying"
>> bisect_reset
>> while read git bisect command rev
>
> That suggests that the original patch is buggy as well, in that it says
> "No logfile given" when it gets two.
>
> How about checking with 1 and saying "Give me only one logfile" and be
> done with it?Yeah or: "Give me exactly one logfile as argument"
Best regards, Christian.