Message ID | pull.885.v2.git.git.1603032125151.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | fd199beb31357f70b7a05f04de0c8c109a3f6a62 |
Headers | show |
Series | [v2] t9832,t2200: avoid using pipes in git commands | expand |
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 10:42 AM Amanda Shafack via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > t9832,t2200: avoid using pipes in git commands The subject is a bit confusing since pipes aren't used in Git commands; instead, Git commands may be components of pipes. However, even that is too imprecise. The issue this patch is addressing is that we want to avoid Git commands _upstream_ in a pipe. It's perfectly acceptable for the Git command to be the final element of a pipe since the pipe returns the exit code of the final command. So, to be more precise, the subject could say: t2200,t9832: avoid using `git` upstream in a pipe Nit: It's subjective, but it feels a bit more natural to list the test numbers in ascending order rather than descending order, which is why I swapped them around in the example above. > When a git command is upstream in a pipe, an unexpected failure of > the git command will go unnoticed. > > Write out the output of the git command to a file, so as to actively > catch a failure of the git command. It's easy to see from the patch itself that the output of the Git command is now written to a file, so it's not necessary to say so in the commit message. Therefore, the entire body of the commit message could be written more succinctly, perhaps like this: Avoid placing `git` upstream in a pipe since doing so throws away its exit code, thus an unexpected failure may go unnoticed. The actual patch itself looks fine, and these comments about the commit message are quite minor, thus there probably is no need to re-roll (though feel free to do so if you think the bit of extra polishing of the commit message is worthwhile). Thanks.
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > precise, the subject could say: > > t2200,t9832: avoid using `git` upstream in a pipe > > Nit: It's subjective, but it feels a bit more natural to list the test > numbers in ascending order rather than descending order, which is why > I swapped them around in the example above. ;-) >> When a git command is upstream in a pipe, an unexpected failure of >> the git command will go unnoticed. >> >> Write out the output of the git command to a file, so as to actively >> catch a failure of the git command. > > It's easy to see from the patch itself that the output of the Git > command is now written to a file, so it's not necessary to say so in > the commit message. Therefore, the entire body of the commit message > could be written more succinctly, perhaps like this: > > Avoid placing `git` upstream in a pipe since doing so throws away > its exit code, thus an unexpected failure may go unnoticed. Yup. > The actual patch itself looks fine, and these comments about the > commit message are quite minor, thus there probably is no need to > re-roll (though feel free to do so if you think the bit of extra > polishing of the commit message is worthwhile). IIUC, the microproject experience aims new contributors to get used to the style of communication that happens during review cycles of a typical topic, using a trivial dip-the-toes-in-the-water problem as an example. I'd rather not to see contributors get into the habit of leaving loose ends and have somebody else clean after them. Thanks.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 8:25 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 10:42 AM Amanda Shafack via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > > t9832,t2200: avoid using pipes in git commands > > The subject is a bit confusing since pipes aren't used in Git > commands; instead, Git commands may be components of pipes. However, > even that is too imprecise. The issue this patch is addressing is that > we want to avoid Git commands _upstream_ in a pipe. It's perfectly > acceptable for the Git command to be the final element of a pipe since > the pipe returns the exit code of the final command. So, to be more > precise, the subject could say: > > t2200,t9832: avoid using `git` upstream in a pipe > > Nit: It's subjective, but it feels a bit more natural to list the test > numbers in ascending order rather than descending order, which is why > I swapped them around in the example above. > I agree it looks more appropriate. > > When a git command is upstream in a pipe, an unexpected failure of > > the git command will go unnoticed. > > > > Write out the output of the git command to a file, so as to actively > > catch a failure of the git command. > > It's easy to see from the patch itself that the output of the Git > command is now written to a file, so it's not necessary to say so in > the commit message. Therefore, the entire body of the commit message > could be written more succinctly, perhaps like this: > > Avoid placing `git` upstream in a pipe since doing so throws away > its exit code, thus an unexpected failure may go unnoticed. > > The actual patch itself looks fine, and these comments about the > commit message are quite minor, thus there probably is no need to > re-roll (though feel free to do so if you think the bit of extra > polishing of the commit message is worthwhile). I believe it's best practice to optimize one's work as much as possible, so I have included these changes. Thanks for the detailed explanation. > Thanks.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 9:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > > > precise, the subject could say: > > > > t2200,t9832: avoid using `git` upstream in a pipe > > > > Nit: It's subjective, but it feels a bit more natural to list the test > > numbers in ascending order rather than descending order, which is why > > I swapped them around in the example above. > > ;-) > > >> When a git command is upstream in a pipe, an unexpected failure of > >> the git command will go unnoticed. > >> > >> Write out the output of the git command to a file, so as to actively > >> catch a failure of the git command. > > > > It's easy to see from the patch itself that the output of the Git > > command is now written to a file, so it's not necessary to say so in > > the commit message. Therefore, the entire body of the commit message > > could be written more succinctly, perhaps like this: > > > > Avoid placing `git` upstream in a pipe since doing so throws away > > its exit code, thus an unexpected failure may go unnoticed. > > Yup. > > > The actual patch itself looks fine, and these comments about the > > commit message are quite minor, thus there probably is no need to > > re-roll (though feel free to do so if you think the bit of extra > > polishing of the commit message is worthwhile). > > IIUC, the microproject experience aims new contributors to get used > to the style of communication that happens during review cycles of a > typical topic, using a trivial dip-the-toes-in-the-water problem as > an example. I'd rather not to see contributors get into the habit > of leaving loose ends and have somebody else clean after them. Taken very seriously > Thanks.
diff --git a/t/t2200-add-update.sh b/t/t2200-add-update.sh index f764b7e3f5..7cb7a70382 100755 --- a/t/t2200-add-update.sh +++ b/t/t2200-add-update.sh @@ -179,7 +179,8 @@ test_expect_success 'add -u resolves unmerged paths' ' test_expect_success '"add -u non-existent" should fail' ' test_must_fail git add -u non-existent && - ! (git ls-files | grep "non-existent") + git ls-files >actual && + ! grep "non-existent" actual ' test_done diff --git a/t/t9832-unshelve.sh b/t/t9832-unshelve.sh index 7194fb2855..6b3cb0414a 100755 --- a/t/t9832-unshelve.sh +++ b/t/t9832-unshelve.sh @@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ EOF cd "$git" && change=$(last_shelved_change) && git p4 unshelve $change && - git show refs/remotes/p4-unshelved/$change | grep -q "Further description" && + git show refs/remotes/p4-unshelved/$change >actual && + grep -q "Further description" actual && git cherry-pick refs/remotes/p4-unshelved/$change && test_path_is_file file2 && test_cmp file1 "$cli"/file1 &&