* [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option.
@ 2010-02-08 22:33 Jeremy White
2010-02-09 0:45 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy White @ 2010-02-08 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
---
imap-send.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c
index 51f371b..885da22 100644
--- a/imap-send.c
+++ b/imap-send.c
@@ -1360,6 +1360,7 @@ static int git_imap_config(const char *key, const char *val, void *cb)
server.ssl_verify = git_config_bool(key, val);
else if (!strcmp("preformattedHTML", key))
server.use_html = git_config_bool(key, val);
+ else imap_info("Unknown imap configuration option '%s'\n", key);
return 0;
}
--
1.7.0.rc2.1.gd78df.dirty
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option.
2010-02-08 22:33 [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option Jeremy White
@ 2010-02-09 0:45 ` Jeff King
2010-02-09 0:59 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2010-02-09 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy White; +Cc: git
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:33:35PM -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
> diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c
> index 51f371b..885da22 100644
> --- a/imap-send.c
> +++ b/imap-send.c
> @@ -1360,6 +1360,7 @@ static int git_imap_config(const char *key, const char *val, void *cb)
> server.ssl_verify = git_config_bool(key, val);
> else if (!strcmp("preformattedHTML", key))
> server.use_html = git_config_bool(key, val);
> + else imap_info("Unknown imap configuration option '%s'\n", key);
> return 0;
> }
Slight NAK from me on this. When we later add new options, it makes
using the same config for multiple versions of git difficult (the old
versions will complain about the unknown option).
And obviously that is weighed against the ability to notice things like
typos. But if we are going to start complaining about unknown config, we
would probably do better to complain about _all_ unknown config, and not
just this one subsection.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option.
2010-02-09 0:45 ` Jeff King
@ 2010-02-09 0:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-02-09 3:01 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2010-02-09 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Jeremy White, git
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:33:35PM -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c
>> index 51f371b..885da22 100644
>> --- a/imap-send.c
>> +++ b/imap-send.c
>> @@ -1360,6 +1360,7 @@ static int git_imap_config(const char *key, const char *val, void *cb)
>> server.ssl_verify = git_config_bool(key, val);
>> else if (!strcmp("preformattedHTML", key))
>> server.use_html = git_config_bool(key, val);
>> + else imap_info("Unknown imap configuration option '%s'\n", key);
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Slight NAK from me on this. When we later add new options, it makes
> using the same config for multiple versions of git difficult (the old
> versions will complain about the unknown option).
>
> And obviously that is weighed against the ability to notice things like
> typos. But if we are going to start complaining about unknown config, we
> would probably do better to complain about _all_ unknown config, and not
> just this one subsection.
We would probably want something like:
static int do_warn_unknown_config;
void warn_unknown_config(const char *key)
{
if (do_warn_unknown_config)
warn("Unknown configuration variable %s", key);
}
and sprinkle that everywhere.
An interesting issue is where to flip do_warn_unknown_config. A naïve
and obvious implementation would do:
static int git_default_core_config(const char *var, const char *value)
{
...
if (!strcmp(var, "core.warnunknownconfig")) {
do_warn_unknown_config = git_config_bool(var, value);
return 0;
}
...
}
but that means the definition of this variable has to come very early in
the configuration file to be effective.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option.
2010-02-09 0:59 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2010-02-09 3:01 ` Jeff King
2010-02-09 5:17 ` David Aguilar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2010-02-09 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Jeremy White, git
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:59:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > And obviously that is weighed against the ability to notice things like
> > typos. But if we are going to start complaining about unknown config, we
> > would probably do better to complain about _all_ unknown config, and not
> > just this one subsection.
>
> We would probably want something like:
>
> static int do_warn_unknown_config;
>
> void warn_unknown_config(const char *key)
> {
> if (do_warn_unknown_config)
> warn("Unknown configuration variable %s", key);
> }
>
> and sprinkle that everywhere.
Your "sprinkle that everywhere" is a little harder than one might hope.
There is no code path that reads and claims to recognize _all_ of the
git config. In many cases, the git_*_config for individual subsystems
can reasonably lay claim to the whole of a "[heading]" section. But
there are exceptions even to that.
Diff config is split across git_diff_basic_config and
git_diff_ui_config. You would certainly not want to warn about
diff.color.* just because you are running a plumbing command which
happens not to recognize those entries.
And some headings have entries for several subsystems. remote.*.fetch is
used many places for calculating upstream branches. But only git-remote
looks at remote.*.skipDefaultUpdate.
So in practice I think you will get quite spotty coverage. Which isn't
to say it isn't necessarily worth doing, but I am personally not very
excited about working on it. I do like the suggestion of making it
optional, so that people who don't care about having a portable config
can have the benefit of sanity-checking their config.
> An interesting issue is where to flip do_warn_unknown_config. A naïve
> and obvious implementation would do:
>
> static int git_default_core_config(const char *var, const char *value)
> {
> ...
> if (!strcmp(var, "core.warnunknownconfig")) {
> do_warn_unknown_config = git_config_bool(var, value);
> return 0;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> but that means the definition of this variable has to come very early in
> the configuration file to be effective.
I would rather have a "git config --lint" command, but that is even
harder, since we are not even loading most of the subsystems which know
about the valid config options. And it presupposes that people will
bother to actually run such a lint command.
You could always just hoist into an environment variable which neatly
gets rid of the ordering problem.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option.
2010-02-09 3:01 ` Jeff King
@ 2010-02-09 5:17 ` David Aguilar
2010-02-09 5:59 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Aguilar @ 2010-02-09 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Jeremy White, git
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:01:51PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:59:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > > And obviously that is weighed against the ability to notice things like
> > > typos. But if we are going to start complaining about unknown config, we
> > > would probably do better to complain about _all_ unknown config, and not
> > > just this one subsection.
No, please, please no.
> So in practice I think you will get quite spotty coverage. Which isn't
> to say it isn't necessarily worth doing, but I am personally not very
> excited about working on it. I do like the suggestion of making it
> optional, so that people who don't care about having a portable config
> can have the benefit of sanity-checking their config.
>
> I would rather have a "git config --lint" command, but that is even
> harder, since we are not even loading most of the subsystems which know
> about the valid config options. And it presupposes that people will
> bother to actually run such a lint command.
This runs up against the same issue you pointed out
earlier--that older versions of git cannot adequately lint
configs from newer versions.
There are also config variables from unknown git scripts outside
of git.git that happen to use the git-config mechanism because
it is convenient. It would be unfortunate to punish those who
chose to make up their own config variables by warning them
that git doesn't know about them.
I have to wonder if this is a non-existent problem.
Config variables are one-shot things. You set them and forget
about them. When you set it you are usually pretty well aware
of whether it's typoed because it simply does't work.
color.ui is a perfect example. If it's typoed, you don't need
'git config --lint' to tell you, you already know by virtue of
using the thing.
Maintaining 'git config --lint' would also be a PITA since we'd
then have to remember to update yet another place in addition to
code and documentation. And who's to say what gets to be "in"
and what doesn't? git-gui, for example, has its own [gui]
namespace. git-p4 has its own [git-p4] namespace, but it
lives in contrib/, etc. etc.
This seems like a bad idea to me.
--
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option.
2010-02-09 5:17 ` David Aguilar
@ 2010-02-09 5:59 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2010-02-09 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Aguilar; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Jeremy White, git
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:17:31PM -0800, David Aguilar wrote:
> > > > And obviously that is weighed against the ability to notice things like
> > > > typos. But if we are going to start complaining about unknown config, we
> > > > would probably do better to complain about _all_ unknown config, and not
> > > > just this one subsection.
>
> No, please, please no.
I would only be OK with it if it were optional.
> > I would rather have a "git config --lint" command, but that is even
> > harder, since we are not even loading most of the subsystems which know
> > about the valid config options. And it presupposes that people will
> > bother to actually run such a lint command.
>
> This runs up against the same issue you pointed out
> earlier--that older versions of git cannot adequately lint
> configs from newer versions.
Yeah, but that isn't a big deal. You just don't run "config --lint" with
the older version. But if, for example, "git diff" breaks because your
config is too new, then that is a real pain (and that was what happened
with color.diff.func recently).
> There are also config variables from unknown git scripts outside
> of git.git that happen to use the git-config mechanism because
> it is convenient. It would be unfortunate to punish those who
> chose to make up their own config variables by warning them
> that git doesn't know about them.
Yes, I don't think anyone is proposing to lint _all_ variables. But it
does not seem unreasonable for certain subsystems to claim portions of
the namespace. I would expect git-core to own "core.*". And I would
expect git-gui to own "git-gui", etc.
> I have to wonder if this is a non-existent problem.
>
> Config variables are one-shot things. You set them and forget
> about them. When you set it you are usually pretty well aware
> of whether it's typoed because it simply does't work.
> color.ui is a perfect example. If it's typoed, you don't need
> 'git config --lint' to tell you, you already know by virtue of
> using the thing.
I think I agree with you on this. It is _much_ more annoying to me not
to have version portability than it is not to have strict config
checking. I was mainly trying to put myself in the shoes of "regular"
users, who are less likely to be running the same config file on many
different versions, and are more likely to be clueless about config. But
I may have overcompensated.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-09 5:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-08 22:33 [PATCH] Generate a warning message if we find an unrecognized option Jeremy White
2010-02-09 0:45 ` Jeff King
2010-02-09 0:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-02-09 3:01 ` Jeff King
2010-02-09 5:17 ` David Aguilar
2010-02-09 5:59 ` Jeff King
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).