Re: [PATCH 5/8] rebase: preserve interactive todo file on checkout failure

From: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
Date: Mar 23, 2023, 23:23 UTC
Message-ID: <ZBzfZZWthdEM+gKK@ugly>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8rfn8bps.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 01:16:47PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

>Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Creating a suitable todo file is a potentially labor-intensive process,
>> so be less cavalier about discarding it when something goes wrong (e.g.,
>> the user messed with the repo while editing the todo).
>
>Is there a reason why we do not always keep it?  Why is the file
>sometimes precious but not precious at all in other times?
>

the unedited initial todo just isn't precious. that implies that in a non-interactive rebase, it is always worthless at the time of the initial reset.

Show 5 quoted lines

>Tying the previous bit to "-i was explicitly given" feels a bit
>unintuitive---when the sequencer machinery was implicitly chosen,
>and gives the control back to the user, should a user be forbidden
>to muck with the todo list?
>

that would be an --edit-todo and --continue during a mid-rebase stop. rather different case.

>No // comments, please.
>

(apparently with a special exception for examples in the apidocs, presumably because escaping nested comments would be just too ugly.)

Show 8 quoted lines

>> -	test_path_is_missing .git/rebase-merge &&
>> +	test_path_is_dir .git/rebase-merge &&
>
>Are we happy to just see that the directory still exists?  I thought
>the original motivation explained in the proposed log message was to
>keep the todo list file, so shouldn't you be checking if the file is
>there
>

fair point.

>(and if you can reliably ensure that the file has contents
>that are expected, that would be even better)?
>

i could grep for a shortened sha1 i would obtain from the branch. but given that the error scenario of a present but somehow corrupted todo seems implausible given the circumstances, that seems like overkill.

>Also, as the keeping of the todo list is now conditional, we should
>have another test that checks that the file is gone when that
>condition ("INTERACTIVE_EXPLICIT"?) does not trigger, I think.
>

that would be for t3400-rebase.sh. i suppose we could extend 'Show verbose error when HEAD could not be detached'.