From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA7EC35254 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0606120661 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="qJgjLXLc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727433AbgBJTau (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:30:50 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62251 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727003AbgBJTau (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:30:50 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF589446B2; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:30:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=5ypISC2tN9HQHOWiviUR4X1oapo=; b=qJgjLX LcBzuoaIBfDLgvXDFPel/xA8Tc5yOKdm9R6AXwhwlFqt2FCsUe0ShhQf5rgpkPNT +CZhlax7aD6Zeh70+lck4KTt2fa9bUbJS2mVAu4XUyT6OEKiamVYC7wEdakoM81B 0AgbK+t5jaTqM+koa6m3WkwBfw/DgOHn5e15U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=lL9VrMB4s4NGXSeWme4CVCpwO+6ZaLzX zOnGMllYGIx0rT5a/moOVhpu4krWEly1f3G7l7y/APOBCHUj1vgCMJjFre+bpMYQ Jk2C09oY8F3uSA2ObYwTSILjSeKycXLq0XhC3EXp2vrX6lsejd6QML6WUGBZthGH Hy8hT/u0iM8= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66E3446B1; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:30:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B4EA446B0; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:30:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Heba Waly via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Heba Waly Subject: Re: [PATCH] advice: refactor advise API References: <97406f9e-b8ef-b5b9-3987-cdef843b31a5@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:30:46 -0800 In-Reply-To: <97406f9e-b8ef-b5b9-3987-cdef843b31a5@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:38:51 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D65B017C-4C3B-11EA-A7E9-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: >> +static const char turn_off_instructions[] = >> +N_("\n" >> +"Turn this message off by running\n" >> +"\"git config %s false\""); > > I have mixed feelings on the use of these instructions. Perhaps at > minimum the addition of these instructions could be left to a > separate patch than the creation of advise_ng(). > > My biggest concern is that this adds unexpected noise to users who > want the advice to stay. I'm calling attention to it, because this > part isn't a simple refactor like the rest of the patch. > ... > I definitely tend to recommend more tests than most, but perhaps this > unit test is overkill? You demonstrate a good test below using a real > Git command, which should be sufficient. If the "turn this message off" > part gets removed, then you will still have coverage of your method. > It just won't require a test change because it would not modify behavior. > ... All good suggestions. Thanks for an excellent review. Another thing. advise_ng() may have been a good name for illustration but is a horrible name for real-world use (imagine we need to revamp the API one more time in the future---what would it be called, which has to say that it is newer than the "next generation"? advise_3rd_try()?). Thanks.