Re: [PATCH v4 06/12] ref-filter: introduce color_atom_parser()

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Feb 7, 2016, 07:43 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cQbf6ek2zdaHh8voBY4DewcwYCW8TsOb2LoDMtDWupDqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZRPbk+uOVhwKumE2eiKDWdkKqtG_mbrNmr4Rn1POdGNdw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +static void color_atom_parser(struct used_atom *atom, const char *color_value)
>>> +{
>>> +       if (!color_value)
>>> +               die(_("expected format: %%(color:<color>)"));
>>> +       if (color_parse(color_value, atom->u.color) < 0)
>>> +               die(_("invalid color value: %s"), atom->u.color);
>>
>> Shouldn't this be:
>>
>>     die(_("invalid color value: %s"), color_value);
>>
>> ?
>
> Oops. You're right, it should.
> Also the error is reported already in color_parse(...), so seems duplicated.
>
> git for-each-ref  --format="%(color:sfadf)%(align:middle,30)%(refname)%(end)"
> error: invalid color value: sfadf
> fatal: invalid color value: sfadf
>
> What would be an ideal way around this?

According to f6c5a29 (color_parse: do not mention variable name in error message, 2014-10-07), the doubled diagnostic messages are intentional, so I don't think you need to do anything about it in this series. If you want to make the "fatal" message a bit more helpful, you could add a %(color:) annotation, like this:

    die(_("unrecognized color: %%(color:%s)"), color_value);

which would give you the slightly more helpful:

    error: invalid color value: sfadf
    fatal: unrecognized color: %(color:sfadf)