Re: [PATCH v4.1 09/12] sequencer.c: teach append_signoff to avoid adding a duplicate newline

From: Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2013, 18:58 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+sFfMecyfD7x_8Jk-hUDceL_nS5kuKq5nF0vRBqLROWFgdypA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130214175849.GA27958@farnsworth.metanate.com>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> wrote:

Show 53 quoted lines

> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 02:33:42AM -0800, Brandon Casey wrote:
>> Teach append_signoff to detect whether a blank line exists at the position
>> that the signed-off-by line will be added, and refrain from adding an
>> additional one if one already exists.  Or, add an additional line if one
>> is needed to make sure the new footer is separated from the message body
>> by a blank line.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <bcasey@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>
> As Jonathan Nieder wondered before [1], this changes the behaviour when
> the commit message is empty.  Before this commit, there is an empty line
> followed by the S-O-B line; now the S-O-B is on the first line of the
> commit.
>
> The previous behaviour seems better to me since the empty line is
> hinting that the user should fill something in.  It looks particularly
> strange if your editor has syntax highlighting for commit messages such
> that the first line is in a different colour.
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/214796
>
>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
>> index 3364faa..084573b 100644
>> --- a/sequencer.c
>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>> @@ -1127,8 +1127,19 @@ void append_signoff(struct strbuf *msgbuf, int ignore_footer, unsigned flag)
>>       else
>>               has_footer = has_conforming_footer(msgbuf, &sob, ignore_footer);
>>
>> -     if (!has_footer)
>> -             strbuf_splice(msgbuf, msgbuf->len - ignore_footer, 0, "\n", 1);
>> +     if (!has_footer) {
>> +             const char *append_newlines = NULL;
>> +             size_t len = msgbuf->len - ignore_footer;
>> +
>> +             if (len && msgbuf->buf[len - 1] != '\n')
>> +                     append_newlines = "\n\n";
>> +             else if (len > 1 && msgbuf->buf[len - 2] != '\n')
>> +                     append_newlines = "\n";
>
> To restore the old behaviour this needs something like this:
>
>                 else if (!len)
>                         append_newlines = "\n";
>
>> +             if (append_newlines)
>> +                     strbuf_splice(msgbuf, msgbuf->len - ignore_footer, 0,
>> +                             append_newlines, strlen(append_newlines));
>> +     }
>>
>>       if (has_footer != 3 && (!no_dup_sob || has_footer != 2))
>>               strbuf_splice(msgbuf, msgbuf->len - ignore_footer, 0,

Are you talking about the output produced by format-patch? Or are you talking about what happens when you do 'commit --amend -s' for a commit with an empty commit message. (The email that you referenced was about the behavior of format-patch).

I'm thinking you must be talking about the 'commit --amend -s' behavior since you mentioned your editor. Is there another case that is affected by this? Normally, any extra blank lines that precede or follow a commit message are removed before the commit object is created. So, I guess it wouldn't hurt to insert a newline (or maybe it should be two?) before the signoff in this case. Would this provide an improvement or change for any other commands than 'commit --amend -s'?

If we want to do this, then I'd probably do it like this:

-               if (len && msgbuf->buf[len - 1] != '\n')
+               if (!len || msgbuf->buf[len - 1] != '\n')
                        append_newlines = "\n\n";
-               else if (len > 1 && msgbuf->buf[len - 2] != '\n')
+               else if (len == 1 || msgbuf->buf[len - 2] != '\n')
                        append_newlines = "\n";

This would ensure there were two newlines preceding the sob. The editor would place its cursor on the top line where the user should begin typing in a commit message. If an editor was not opened up (e.g. if 'git cherry-pick -s --allow-empty-message ...' was used) then the normal mechanism that removes extra blank lines would trigger to remove the extra blank lines.

I think that's reasonable.

It seems 'git cherry-pick -s --edit' follows a different code path, and the commit message is stripped of newlines by 'git commit' before it is passed to the editor. 'cherry-pick -s --edit' and 'commit --amend -s' should probably have the same behavior and present the same buffer to the user for editing when they encounter a commit with an empty message.

Maybe something like this is enough(?):

diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
index 7b9e2ac..0796412 100644
--- a/builtin/commit.c
+++ b/builtin/commit.c
@@ -124,8 +124,10 @@ static int opt_parse_m(const struct option *opt, const char
        if (unset)
                strbuf_setlen(buf, 0);
        else {
+               if (buf->len)
+                       strbuf_addch(buf, '\n');
                strbuf_addstr(buf, arg);
-               strbuf_addstr(buf, "\n\n");
+               strbuf_complete_line(buf);
        }
        return 0;
 }
@@ -673,9 +675,6 @@ static int prepare_to_commit(const char *index_file, const c
        if (s->fp == NULL)
                die_errno(_("could not open '%s'"), git_path(commit_editmsg));

-       if (clean_message_contents)
-               stripspace(&sb, 0);
-
        if (signoff) {
                /*
                 * See if we have a Conflicts: block at the end. If yes, count
@@ -703,6 +702,9 @@ static int prepare_to_commit(const char *index_file, const c
                append_signoff(&sb, ignore_footer, 0);
        }

+       if (clean_message_contents)
+               stripspace(&sb, 0);
+
        if (fwrite(sb.buf, 1, sb.len, s->fp) < sb.len)
                die_errno(_("could not write commit template"));

I suspect we have a broken test at t7502.15 though that happened to
work because opt_parse_m() was appending two newlines that the test
expected to be there.

-Brandon