Re: [PATCH v3] git-prompt: make colourization consistent

From: Justin Donnelly <justinrdonnelly@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 3, 2022, 19:43 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGTqyRxkiGt7CRggV7VeXNRK2VmDMxDX3EpOr5cPcc5AdH8ZaA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9fa34f22-3404-7bf8-6985-642c80634bf8@online.no>

Hi all. I'm the author of 0ec7c23c (git-prompt: make upstream state indicator location consistent, 2022-02-27). Sorry I'm a little late jumping in. I was also going to propose something more comprehensive and future-proof than what's there (adding the applicable color (including clear) to all the indicators), but I like Junio's idea better. The only other thing I have to add is that it's probably a good idea to include a comment in the function `__git_ps1_colorize_gitstring` explaining the design so future developers/reviewers know.

Thanks, Justin

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 2:52 PM Joakim Petersen <joak-pet@online.no> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

>
> On 03/06/2022 19:23, Joakim Petersen wrote:
> > That does seem like a much better idea for maintainability, I can
> > change the patch to do this instead. I have one question, though: the
> > sequence $c$b (bare state and branch name) is a special case, where
> > they're intended to have the same colour, should I wrap both in colour
> > set, colour clear, or only clear after $b? The former requires rewriting
> > the tests or changing $gitstring to not include $c when $c is empty,
> > while the latter keeps the tests unchanged, but may pose a problem if
> > "BARE:" should at any point not appear immediately before the branch
> > name.
>
> Sorry, the former (colourizing and clearing $c and $b individually)
> requires rewriting tests no matter what.