Re: [PATCH 2/4] format-patch: fix a bug in option exclusivity and add a test to t4014

["Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name>]

It could be useful to Cc the author of that commit since it’s so
recent. Like an FYI.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, at 05:32, Dragan Simic wrote:
> Fix a bug that allows --rfc and -k options to be specified together when
> executing "git format-patch".  This bug was introduced back in the commit
> e0d7db7423a9 ("format-patch: --rfc honors what --subject-prefix sets"),
> about eight months ago, but it has remained undetected so far, presumably
> because of no associated test coverage.

I don’t think speculating on why the bug is still there improves the
commit message.

This paragraph could perhaps be rewritten to

  “ Fix a bug from e0d7db7423a (format-patch: --rfc honors what
    --subject-prefix sets, 2023-08-30) that allows --rfc and -k options
    to be specified together when executing "git format-patch".

The extra sentence in the original doesn’t really explain anything more
about the commit. Except the “eight months ago”, but here I’ve used the
“reference” style (not the Linux-style) which contains the date.

> Add a new test to the t4014 that covers the mutual exclusivity of the --rfc
> and -k command-line options for "git format-patch", for future coverage.

I.e. add a regression test. Pretty standard.

>
> Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
> ---
>  builtin/log.c           | 5 ++++-
>  t/t4014-format-patch.sh | 4 ++++
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
> index c0a8bb95e983..e5a238f1cf2c 100644
> --- a/builtin/log.c
> +++ b/builtin/log.c
> @@ -2050,8 +2050,11 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char
> **argv, const char *prefix)
>  	if (cover_from_description_arg)
>  		cover_from_description_mode =
> parse_cover_from_description(cover_from_description_arg);
>
> -	if (rfc)
> +	/* Also mark the subject prefix as modified, for later checks */

I think the code speaks for itself in this case.

> +	if (rfc) {
>  		strbuf_insertstr(&sprefix, 0, "RFC ");
> +		subject_prefix = 1;
> +	}
>
>  	if (reroll_count) {
>  		strbuf_addf(&sprefix, " v%s", reroll_count);
> diff --git a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> index e37a1411ee24..e22c4ac34e6e 100755
> --- a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> +++ b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> @@ -1397,6 +1397,10 @@ test_expect_success '--rfc is argument order
> independent' '
>  	test_cmp expect actual
>  '
>
> +test_expect_success '--rfc and -k cannot be used together' '
> +	test_must_fail git format-patch -1 --stdout --rfc -k >patch

I don’t understand why you redirect to `patch` if you only check the
exit code. (I don’t expect any stdout since it will fail.)

Although it would be nice with a text comparison or grep on the stderr
output to make sure that the command died for the expected reason. But I
haven’t read the associated code.

> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success '--from=ident notices bogus ident' '
>  	test_must_fail git format-patch -1 --stdout --from=foo >patch
>  '