# [PATCH] demonstrate git-commit --dry-run exit code behaviour 4 messages from 2014-02-21 to 2014-02-24. Participants: Tay Ray Chuan, Junio C Hamano, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/35929 ## Tay Ray Chuan, 2014-02-21 19:16 Subject: [PATCH] demonstrate git-commit --dry-run exit code behaviour Message-ID: <1393010214-32306-1-git-send-email-rctay89@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1393010214-32306-1-git-send-email-rctay89%40gmail.com ``` In particular, show that --short and --porcelain, while implying --dry-run, do not return the same exit code as --dry-run. This is due to the wt_status.commitable flag being set only when a long status is requested. No fix is provided here; with [1], it should be trivial to fix though - just a matter of calling wt_status_mark_commitable(). [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/242489 Signed-off-by: Tay Ray Chuan --- t/t7501-commit.sh | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t7501-commit.sh b/t/t7501-commit.sh index 94eec83..d58b097 100755 --- a/t/t7501-commit.sh +++ b/t/t7501-commit.sh @@ -61,11 +61,47 @@ test_expect_success 'nothing to commit' ' test_must_fail git commit -m initial ' +test_expect_success '--dry-run fails with nothing to commit' ' + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --dry-run +' + +test_expect_success '--short fails with nothing to commit' ' + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --short +' + +test_expect_success '--porcelain fails with nothing to commit' ' + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --porcelain +' + +test_expect_success '--long fails with nothing to commit' ' + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --long +' + test_expect_success 'setup: non-initial commit' ' echo bongo bongo bongo >file && git commit -m next -a ' +test_expect_success '--dry-run with stuff to commit returns ok' ' + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && + git commit -m next -a --dry-run +' + +test_expect_failure '--short with stuff to commit returns ok' ' + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && + git commit -m next -a --short +' + +test_expect_failure '--porcelain with stuff to commit returns ok' ' + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && + git commit -m next -a --porcelain +' + +test_expect_success '--long with stuff to commit returns ok' ' + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && + git commit -m next -a --long +' + test_expect_success 'commit message from non-existing file' ' echo more bongo: bongo bongo bongo bongo >file && test_must_fail git commit -F gah -a -- 1.9.0.291.g027825b ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-02-21 20:21 Subject: Re: [PATCH] demonstrate git-commit --dry-run exit code behaviour Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqa9dk43pi.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <1393010214-32306-1-git-send-email-rctay89@gmail.com> ``` Tay Ray Chuan writes: > In particular, show that --short and --porcelain, while implying > --dry-run, do not return the same exit code as --dry-run. This is due to > the wt_status.commitable flag being set only when a long status is > requested. I am not sure if --short/--porcelain should even be accepted by "git commit" in the first place. It used to be that "git status" and "git commit" were the same program in a different guise and "git status " were merely a "git commit --dry-run ", but the recent push is in the direction of making them totally separate in the end-user's minds. So if we want a proper fix, I would actually think that these options should *error out* at the command line parser level, way before checking if there is anything to commit. > No fix is provided here; with [1], it should be trivial to fix though - > just a matter of calling wt_status_mark_commitable(). > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/242489 > > Signed-off-by: Tay Ray Chuan > --- > t/t7501-commit.sh | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/t/t7501-commit.sh b/t/t7501-commit.sh > index 94eec83..d58b097 100755 > --- a/t/t7501-commit.sh > +++ b/t/t7501-commit.sh > @@ -61,11 +61,47 @@ test_expect_success 'nothing to commit' ' > test_must_fail git commit -m initial > ' > > +test_expect_success '--dry-run fails with nothing to commit' ' > + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --dry-run > +' > + > +test_expect_success '--short fails with nothing to commit' ' > + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --short > +' > + > +test_expect_success '--porcelain fails with nothing to commit' ' > + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --porcelain > +' > + > +test_expect_success '--long fails with nothing to commit' ' > + test_must_fail git commit -m initial --long > +' > + > test_expect_success 'setup: non-initial commit' ' > echo bongo bongo bongo >file && > git commit -m next -a > ' > > +test_expect_success '--dry-run with stuff to commit returns ok' ' > + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && > + git commit -m next -a --dry-run > +' > + > +test_expect_failure '--short with stuff to commit returns ok' ' > + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && > + git commit -m next -a --short > +' > + > +test_expect_failure '--porcelain with stuff to commit returns ok' ' > + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && > + git commit -m next -a --porcelain > +' > + > +test_expect_success '--long with stuff to commit returns ok' ' > + echo bongo bongo bongo >>file && > + git commit -m next -a --long > +' > + > test_expect_success 'commit message from non-existing file' ' > echo more bongo: bongo bongo bongo bongo >file && > test_must_fail git commit -F gah -a ``` ## Jeff King, 2014-02-22 08:34 Subject: Re: [PATCH] demonstrate git-commit --dry-run exit code behaviour Message-ID: <20140222083423.GF1576@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20140222083423.GF1576%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:21:13PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Tay Ray Chuan writes: > > > In particular, show that --short and --porcelain, while implying > > --dry-run, do not return the same exit code as --dry-run. This is due to > > the wt_status.commitable flag being set only when a long status is > > requested. > > I am not sure if --short/--porcelain should even be accepted by "git > commit" in the first place. It used to be that "git status" and > "git commit" were the same program in a different guise and "git > status " were merely a "git commit --dry-run ", > but the recent push is in the direction of making them totally > separate in the end-user's minds. So if we want a proper fix, I > would actually think that these options should *error out* at the > command line parser level, way before checking if there is anything > to commit. I do not think they are any less useful than "git commit --dry-run" in the first place. If you want to ask "what would happen if I ran commit with these arguments", you can get the answer in any of several formats (and --porcelain is the only machine-readable one). I have never found "commit --dry-run" to be useful, but I assumed that somebody does. -Peff ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-02-24 17:16 Subject: Re: [PATCH] demonstrate git-commit --dry-run exit code behaviour Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqha7obfe6.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <20140222083423.GF1576@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:21:13PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Tay Ray Chuan writes: >> >> > In particular, show that --short and --porcelain, while implying >> > --dry-run, do not return the same exit code as --dry-run. This is due to >> > the wt_status.commitable flag being set only when a long status is >> > requested. >> >> I am not sure if --short/--porcelain should even be accepted by "git >> commit" in the first place. It used to be that "git status" and >> "git commit" were the same program in a different guise and "git >> status " were merely a "git commit --dry-run ", >> but the recent push is in the direction of making them totally >> separate in the end-user's minds. So if we want a proper fix, I >> would actually think that these options should *error out* at the >> command line parser level, way before checking if there is anything >> to commit. > > I do not think they are any less useful than "git commit --dry-run" in > the first place. If you want to ask "what would happen if I ran commit > with these arguments", you can get the answer in any of several formats > (and --porcelain is the only machine-readable one). Hmph. > I have never found "commit --dry-run" to be useful, but I assumed that > somebody does. Same here, and I did not really consider "commit --short" was intentionally a valid short-hand for "commit --dry-run --short", but its working as such was an accident, hence my comment. ```