Re: [PATCH] bash-completions: add --[no-]graph-indent

[Toon Claes <toon@iotcl.com>]

Mirko Faina <mroik@delayed.space> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 01:45:15PM +0000, Pablo Sabater wrote:
>> I didn't know about this so I completely forgot to add it, however from
>> what I read, this is the __git_log_common_options and I'm not sure if
>> this is a "common" opt, as I don't even see --graph here.
>> 
>> I searched where --graph is, and it's here:
>> 
>> l 2383-2409 'git-completion.bash'
>> 
>> 	__gitcomp "
>> [more opts]
>> 		--graph
>> [more opts]
>> 		$merge
>> 		$__git_diff_common_options
>> 		"
>> 	return
>> 	;;
>> 
>> I think it would fit better here (not sure, I just quickly skimmed the
>> file).
>
> Yes, you're right. I was on automatic mode when choosing where to place
> it and defaulted to the place where I put an option of mine that worked
> for log. Since this is specific to "git log" I'll place it where you
> suggested.
>
>> Also, I missed this for the --graph-lane-limit option so maybe it should
>> be added too?
>
> Not familiar with the option but will look into it, might as well add
> it.
>
>> My main doubt is, both these options proposed (yours and
>> --graph-lane-limit) are --graph dependent, which means if someone
>> autocompletes them but doesn't use --graph, they will get an error
>> saying that --graph is needed. I'd say we do what other --graph
>> dependent options do, but AFAIK these two are the only ones.
>> 
>> From Toon's Git Merge talk, more options for --graph option will be
>> developed so we should maybe think about how to do it in a way that 
>> doesn't autocomplete if it's going to error? (maybe that does exist,
>> given the multiple options that depend on other options)
>
> From what I can tell the only reason we options through bash-completions
> is because these options are not handled by the parse-options.h
> machinery. Ideally we'd want to port these options to that? I'm assuming
> the reason it wasn't was because of the common options.
>
> With the parse-options.h machinery you can't tell which option depends
> on which other, so it just shows every option available for a command
> when autocompleting. I'm not sure it's worth it to implement such a
> feature with bash-completions when the parse-options.h machinery
> doesn't.

Yes, I agree. It would be cool if parse-options.h would be smarter in
this regard, but for now that's not the case, and I'm fine with that.
I'm pretty sure (although I cannot think of any right now) there are
other options (for other commands) that only work if combined.

I appreciate thinking about this, but that's something for the future.

> Thank you for the review, will reroll.
> Mirko Faina

-- 
Laters,
Toon