Re: [PATCH] ls-tree: fix --no-full-name

["René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>]

Am 21.07.23 um 22:09 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
>
>> -    -D, --no-doubt        begins with 'no-'
>> +    -D, --[no-]no-doubt   begins with 'no-'
>
> Hmph, I really really loved the neat trick to allow "no-doubt"
> option to be "positivised" by _dropping_ the leading "no-" at around
> 0f1930c5 (parse-options: allow positivation of options starting,
> with no-, 2012-02-25).

Yeah, if there is a better way to document A) that the "no-" is optional
and B) whether it's present by default, I'm all ears.

> Many of the above are amusing and served as good demonstration to
> show the blast radius, but it seems that most of them should be
> marked with PARSE_OPT_NONEG.

Hard to say for me -- these are synthetic test cases and I lack context
to make that decision.  In t0040 (t/helper/test-parse-options.c rather)
we do have a few PARSE_OPT_NONEG uses already.  In t1502 we need to add
some...

>
>> diff --git a/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh b/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh
>> index dd811b7fb4..0a67e2dd4f 100755
>> --- a/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh
>> +++ b/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh
>> @@ -64,33 +64,38 @@ test_expect_success 'test --parseopt help output' '
>>  |
>>  |    some-command does foo and bar!
>>  |
>> -|    -h, --help            show the help
>> -|    --foo                 some nifty option --foo
>> -|    --bar ...             some cool option --bar with an argument
>> -|    -b, --baz             a short and long option
>> +|    -h, --[no-]help       show the help
>
> Indeed it is amusing, but we probably should give PARSE_OPT_NONEG
> appropriately, instead of changing the expectations, for many of the
> changes we see here, I think.

... and --help is the one obvious choice for me, because --no-help is
not supported, of course.  But we can use some more dedicated tests of
negation and double-negation.

René