Re: [PATCH] git-send-email: add sendmailCommand option
- From
Gregory Anders <greg@gpanders.com>
- Date
- May 12, 2021, 13:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YJvSJ3/2RWFJVmoq@gpanders.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqh7j8h9cy.fsf@gitster.g>
On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:19 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Is this a totally unwarranted rewrapping of an unrelated part of the >same document, or was there some words or phrases in this >description of the envelope-sender option that needed to be adjusted >for the introduction of sendmail-cmd option?
Yes it's just a rewrapping that I did while adding my new paragraph. The other reviewers pointed this out as well. My mistake, I will remove this from the next patch revision.
Show 8 quoted lines
>> +--sendmail-cmd=<command>:: >> + Specify a command to run to send the email. The command should >> + be compatible with `sendmail` as the arguments are passed >> + directly. The command will be executed in the shell if >> + necessary. Default is the value of `sendemail.sendmailCommand`. >> + If unspecified, and if --smtp-server is also unspecified, >> + git-send-email will search for `sendmail` in `/usr/sbin`, >> + `/usr/lib` and $PATH if such a program is available.
>OK, but doesn't this also need to support '-i'?
'The command should be compatible with `sendmail`' was meant to imply this, though I can make this more explicit.
Show 19 quoted lines
>> @@ -211,13 +221,14 @@ a password is obtained using 'git-credential'. >> >> --smtp-server=<host>:: >> If set, specifies the outgoing SMTP server to use (e.g. >> - `smtp.example.com` or a raw IP address). Alternatively it can >> - specify a full pathname of a sendmail-like program instead; >> - the program must support the `-i` option. Default value can >> - be specified by the `sendemail.smtpServer` configuration >> - option; the built-in default is to search for `sendmail` in >> - `/usr/sbin`, `/usr/lib` and $PATH if such program is >> - available, falling back to `localhost` otherwise. >> + `smtp.example.com` or a raw IP address). If unspecified, and if >> + `--sendmail-cmd` is also unspecified, the default is to search >> + for `sendmail` in `/usr/sbin`, `/usr/lib` and $PATH if such a >> + program is available, falling back to `localhost` otherwise. >> + >> + For backward compatibility, this option can also specify a full >> + pathname of a sendmail-like program instead; the program must >> + support the `-i` option. Prefer using `--sendmail-cmd` instead.
>Drop the last sentence, if we are not going to explain why.
I do think nudging users to use the "correct" option is valuable, so I will add some why text. Though I think adhering to the "--smtp-server should specify a host and --sendmail-cmd specifies a command" dichotomy is a good reason in and of itself.
Show 18 quoted lines
>> @@ -1490,14 +1497,15 @@ sub send_message {
>>
>> unshift (@sendmail_parameters, @smtp_server_options);
>>
>> + if (file_name_is_absolute($smtp_server)) {
>> + # Preserved for backward compatibility
>> + $sendmail_command ||= $smtp_server;
>> + }
>
>Hmph, I wonder if this makes the intent more clear.
>
> if (!defined $sendmail_command && file_name_is_absolute($smtp_server)) {
> $sendmail_command = $smtp_server;
> }
>
>That is, if the user gave us the command in newer form, we do not
>even have to bother checking if the server is given as an absolute
>pathname.Yes I think you're right, I'll make this change.
Show 8 quoted lines
>You seem to have replaced every smtp-server="$(pwd)/ mechanically >with sendmai-cmd=\"$(pwd)/, but please make sure that we have at >least one test left that passes an absolute path to --smtp-server to >ensure that the old mechanism keeps working. A bonus point for >marking such a test that needs to be adjusted when the actual >deprecation happens (i.e. we'd likely to detect the use of absolute >path and throw a warning, so the test should notice the warning >message).
Noted, I'll add a test for this case.
>Also you would want to tweak some of the --sendmail-cmd variants to >use just the command name, with and without args, to ensure that (1) >discovery on $PATH works, and (2) passing initial args works.
I did add two such tests:
diff --git a/t/t9001-send-email.sh b/t/t9001-send-email.sh index 65b3035371..82a3efb987 100755 --- a/t/t9001-send-email.sh +++ b/t/t9001-send-email.sh @@ -2148,6 +2148,29 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ 'leading and trailing whitespaces are removed' ' test_cmp expected-list actual-list ' +test_expect_success $PREREQ 'test using relative path with sendmailCommand' ' + clean_fake_sendmail && + PATH="$(pwd):$PATH" \ + git send-email \ + --from="Example <nobody@example.com>" \ + --to=nobody@example.com \ + --sendmail-cmd="fake.sendmail" \ + HEAD~2 && + test_path_is_file commandline1 && + test_path_is_file commandline2 +' + +test_expect_success $PREREQ 'test using shell with sendmailCommand' ' + clean_fake_sendmail && + git send-email \ + --from="Example <nobody@example.com>" \ + --to=nobody@example.com \ + --sendmail-cmd="[ 1 -eq 1 ] && \"$(pwd)/fake.sendmail\"" \ + HEAD~2 && + test_path_is_file commandline1 && + test_path_is_file commandline2 +' + test_expect_success $PREREQ 'invoke hook' ' mkdir -p .git/hooks && Granted, the second test tests for some generic shell expression, not passing arguments, but I think if the former works the latter ought to as well. Thanks for your feedback.