Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation

From: Sergey Organov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 17:34:52 +0300

Jean-Noël Avila <[email-masked]> writes:

> Putting my documentation/translator hat:
>
> Le 29/02/2024 à 20:07, Sergey Organov a écrit :
>> What -n actually does in addition to its documented behavior is
>> ignoring of configuration variable clean.requireForce, that makes
>> sense provided -n prevents files removal anyway.
>> 
>> So, first, document this in the manual, and then modify implementation
>> to make this more explicit in the code.
>> 
>> Improved implementation also stops to share single internal variable
>> 'force' between command-line -f option and configuration variable
>> clean.requireForce, resulting in more clear logic.
>> 
>> The error messages now do not mention -n as well, as it seems
>> unnecessary and does not reflect clarified implementation.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/git-clean.txt |  2 ++
>>  builtin/clean.c             | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-clean.txt b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> index 69331e3f05a1..662eebb85207 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-clean.txt
>> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ OPTIONS
>>  -n::
>>  --dry-run::
>>  	Don't actually remove anything, just show what would be done.
>> +	Configuration variable clean.requireForce is ignored, as
>> +	nothing will be deleted anyway.
>
> Please use backticks for options, configuration and environment names:
> `clean.requireForce`

I did consider this. However, existing text already has exactly this one
unquoted, so I just did the same. Hopefully it will be fixed altogether
later, or are you positive I better resend the patch with quotes? 

>>  
>>  -q::
>>  --quiet::
>> diff --git a/builtin/clean.c b/builtin/clean.c
>> index d90766cad3a0..fcc50d08ee9b 100644
>> --- a/builtin/clean.c
>> +++ b/builtin/clean.c
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>>  #include "help.h"
>>  #include "prompt.h"
>>  
>> -static int force = -1; /* unset */
>> +static int require_force = -1; /* unset */
>>  static int interactive;
>>  static struct string_list del_list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
>>  static unsigned int colopts;
>> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int git_clean_config(const char *var, const char *value,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (!strcmp(var, "clean.requireforce")) {
>> -		force = !git_config_bool(var, value);
>> +		require_force = git_config_bool(var, value);
>>  		return 0;
>>  	}
>>  
>> @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>  {
>>  	int i, res;
>>  	int dry_run = 0, remove_directories = 0, quiet = 0, ignored = 0;
>> -	int ignored_only = 0, config_set = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
>> +	int ignored_only = 0, force = 0, errors = 0, gone = 1;
>>  	int rm_flags = REMOVE_DIR_KEEP_NESTED_GIT;
>>  	struct strbuf abs_path = STRBUF_INIT;
>>  	struct dir_struct dir = DIR_INIT;
>> @@ -946,21 +946,21 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>  	};
>>  
>>  	git_config(git_clean_config, NULL);
>> -	if (force < 0)
>> -		force = 0;
>> -	else
>> -		config_set = 1;
>>  
>>  	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, builtin_clean_usage,
>>  			     0);
>>  
>> -	if (!interactive && !dry_run && !force) {
>> -		if (config_set)
>> -			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -i, -n, nor -f given; "
>> +	/* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no sense */
>> +	if(dry_run)
>> +		require_force = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (!force && !interactive) {
>> +		if (require_force > 0)
>> +			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> +				  "refusing to clean"));
>> +		else if (require_force < 0)
>> +			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>>  				  "refusing to clean"));
>> -		else
>> -			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -i, -n, nor -f given;"
>> -				  " refusing to clean"));
>>  	}
>>  
>
> The last two cases can be coalesced into a single case (the last one),
> because the difference in the messages does not bring more information
> to the user.

Did you misread the patch? There are only 2 cases here, the last (third)
one is marked with '-' (removed). Too easy to misread this, I'd say. New
code is:

		if (require_force > 0)
			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
				  "refusing to clean"));
		else if (require_force < 0)
			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "

and is basically unchanged from the original, except reference to '-n' has been
removed. Btw, is now comma needed after -f, and isn't it better to
substitute ':' for ';'?

Thank you for review!

-- Sergey Organov