threads / patch / 52755

patchsubmodule: add newline on invalid submodule error

Subject: [PATCH] submodule: add newline on invalid submodule error

## tl;dr

2 messages between Feb 7, 2020 and Feb 7, 2020. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

Emily Shaffer· Feb 7, 2020, 00:48 UTC · lore

Since 'err' contains output for multiple submodules and is printed all at once by fetch_populated_submodules(), errors for each submodule should be newline separated for readability. The same strbuf is added to with a newline in the other half of the conditional where this error is detected, so make the two consistent.

Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
---
 submodule.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Show changes to submodule.c +1 −1

diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
index 3a184b66ab..d63f4476d9 100644
--- a/submodule.c
+++ b/submodule.c
@@ -1480,7 +1480,7 @@ static int get_next_submodule(struct child_process *cp,
 			    !is_empty_dir(ce->name)) {
 				spf->result = 1;
 				strbuf_addf(err,
-					    _("Could not access submodule '%s'"),
+					    _("Could not access submodule '%s'\n"),
 					    ce->name);
 			}
 		}

-- 
2.25.0.341.g760bfbb309-goog

Derrick Stolee· Feb 7, 2020, 13:55 UTC · re: Emily Shaffer · lore

Re: [PATCH] submodule: add newline on invalid submodule error

On 2/6/2020 7:48 PM, Emily Shaffer wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Since 'err' contains output for multiple submodules and is printed all
> at once by fetch_populated_submodules(), errors for each submodule
> should be newline separated for readability. The same strbuf is added to
> with a newline in the other half of the conditional where this error is
> detected, so make the two consistent.

A worthy goal, and thanks for pointing out that this matches the "Fetching submodule %s%s\n" string in the other block.

> -					    _("Could not access submodule '%s'"),
> +					    _("Could not access submodule '%s'\n"),

My initial thought was that this `\n` should be added in front of the string, and only if the string has existing data. However, that's not what happens in the other block, so doing it that way would require changing both places. This approach is also less error-prone, even if it may result in an "extra" newline at the end of all the messages.

LGTM.

Thanks, -Stolee