Re: [PATCH 3/4] completion: reflog with implicit "show"

From: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2024, 18:06 UTC
Message-ID: <abe1c96d-48f7-4355-8688-e1fb05c67448@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwmqyr3mb.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 17:46:20 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>     $ git reflog sho<TAB>
>     shot show
> 
> That is what I would expect.

Thank you for responding.

Of course that's the logical expectation.

However I'm not sure if it is sensible to offer completion for sub-commands mixed with branch names.

Furthermore, I am also worried that such an approach implies making the user pay, probably unnecessarily many times, for __git_complete_refs in cases such as:

    $ git reflog <TAB><TAB>  ;# the user may be just exploring the sub-commands
    $ git reflog s<TAB>      ;# the user may be lazy and just want "show "
    $ git reflog show<TAB>   ;# likewise, to complete the SP
    $ git reflog expir<TAB>  ;# how often a expir... branch is expected here?

The experienced user, if not most users, should be intuitive enough to circumvent the corner cases:

    $ git reflog <TAB><TAB>
    delete expire show
    ...
    $ git reflog s<TAB>
    ...
    $ git reflog show s<TAB>
    ...
    $ git reflog show shot

This is why I choose to fallback to __git_complete_ref only when no other option is available.

If you think, or anyone else, that these concerns don't make sense, I'm open to make it work as you described.