Re: [TOPIC 2/17] Hooks in the future

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 13, 2020, 17:56 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqeetwcf4k.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200312141628.GL212281@google.com>

Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> This means that we could do something like this:
>
> [hook "/path/to/executable.sh"]
> 	event = pre-commit
> 	order = 123
> 	mustSucceed = false
> 	parallelizable = true
>
> etc, etc as needed.

You can do

    [hook "pre-commit"]
	order = 123
	path = "/path/to/executable.sh"

    [hook "pre-commit"]
	order = 234
	path = "/path/to/another-executable.sh"

as well, and using the second level for what hook the (sub)section is about, instead of "we have this path that is used for a hook. What hook is it?", feels (at least to me) more natural.

Show 5 quoted lines

> But I wonder if we also want to be able to do something like this:
>
> [hook "/etc/git-secrets/git-secrets"]
> 	event = pre-commit
> 	event = prepare-commit-msg

Once you start going this route, it no longer makes sense to give priority (you called it "order") to a path and have that same number used in contexts of different hooks. Your git-secrets script may want to be called early among pre-commit hooks but late among the prepare-commit-msg hooks, for example.

> I think, though, that something like
> hook.pre-commit."path/to/executable.sh" won't work.

That is why Peff already suggested in the TOPIC notes to use "command" in the message you are responding to (I used "path" in the above description).