Re: [PATCH 0/2] pre-commit hook updates

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com> wrote:
> The first patch changes t/t7503-pre-commit-hook.sh to use write_script
> everywhere, as was suggested by Jeff King in the discussion of the
> previous patch.
>
> The second patch is v2 of the patch I sent earlier. I've incorporated
> Eric Sunshine's suggestions. I didn't do enough digging; I found
> test_expect_failure and assumed this was test_expect_success's twin
> brother, but it marked stuff as known breakages so I went with the '!'.
> I also found it a bit strange that test_must_fail has a different
> signature (to the extent a shell function has one at all). Is my use of
> test_must_fail correct?

Your use is not correct (as I'll explain when responding to the patch).

> I agree with Junio Hamano that it's better to provide no argument at all
> rather than an empty one. I also agree with Jeff King that "noamend" is
> better than an empty argument. I went with the second one since Jeff
> seemed to get the last word :)

For what it's worth (probably not much), I agree with Junio.

> I'm not sure I like the ternary inside the function call like that, but
> I went with it because it gave the smallest footprint (which is probably
> not a good argument). I suppose I could have done:
>
> if (amend)
>         hook_arg1 = "amend"
> else
>         hook_arg1 = "noamend"
> ...
> ... run_commit_hook(use_editor, index_file, "pre-commit", hook_arg1, NULL);
>
> or create a hook_amend variable.
>
> I'm happy to send a v3.