Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] config: added --expiry-date type support




On 2017-11-12 14:55, Jeff King wrote:
Hi, and welcome to the list. Thanks for working on this (for those of
you on the list, this was one of the tasks at the hackathon this
weekend).

It was a pleasure meeting everyone and a great experience!


Kevin already mentioned a few things about the commit message, which I
agree with.

Sorry about that and the commit message formatting,
now that my mail is being received by git@vger I will try sending patches
with the required text, etc.


It's great that there are new tests. We'll probably need some
documentation, too (especially users will need to know what the output
format means).


True, looking at the repo I found a document here[0]
Should I try editing this to add the new option?

@@ -80,6 +81,7 @@ static struct option builtin_config_options[] = {
 	OPT_BIT(0, "int", &types, N_("value is decimal number"), TYPE_INT),
OPT_BIT(0, "bool-or-int", &types, N_("value is --bool or --int"), TYPE_BOOL_OR_INT), OPT_BIT(0, "path", &types, N_("value is a path (file or directory name)"), TYPE_PATH), + OPT_BIT(0, "expiry-date", &types, N_("value is an expiry date"), TYPE_EXPIRY_DATE),
 	OPT_GROUP(N_("Other")),
OPT_BOOL('z', "null", &end_null, N_("terminate values with NUL byte")), OPT_BOOL(0, "name-only", &omit_values, N_("show variable names only")),

We seem to use both "expire" and "expiry" throughout the code and in
user-facing bits (e.g., "gc.reflogExpire" and "gc.logExpiry"). I don't
have a real preference for one versus the other. I just mention it since
whatever we choose here will be locked in to the interface forever.


I am not sure why do we need to use the 'expir(e/y)' keyword?
I think the parse_expiry_date() function still worked for past dates
is that intended?

Would having it as just '--date' suffice or do you plan to
have --date-type which will be different from expiry dates?

Anyways, I will use whatever keyword you think is more suitable. Please let me know.

@@ -159,6 +161,12 @@ static int format_config(struct strbuf *buf, const char *key_, const char *value
 				return -1;
 			strbuf_addstr(buf, v);
 			free((char *)v);
+		} else if (types == TYPE_EXPIRY_DATE) {
+			timestamp_t *t = malloc(sizeof(*t));
+			if(git_config_expiry_date(&t, key_, value_) < 0)
+				return -1;
+			strbuf_addf(buf, "%"PRItime, *t);
+			free((timestamp_t *)t);
 		} else if (value_) {

Since we only need the timestamp variable within this block, we don't
need to use a pointer. We can just do something like:

  } else if (types == TYPE_EXPIRY_DATE) {
	timestamp_t t;
	if (git_config_expiry_date(&t, key_, value_) < 0)
		return -1;
	strbuf_addf(buf, "%"PRItime", t);
  }

Note that your new git_config_expiry_date would want to take just a
regular pointer, rather than a pointer-to-pointer. I suspect you picked
that up from git_config_pathname(). It needs the double pointer because
it's storing a string (which is itself a pointer), but we don't need
that here.

Yes, I got it from the pathname function, I'll change this to just pointer.


diff --git a/config.c b/config.c
index 903abf9533b18..caa2fd5fb6915 100644
--- a/config.c
+++ b/config.c
@@ -990,6 +990,15 @@ int git_config_pathname(const char **dest, const char *var, const char *value)
 	return 0;
 }

+int git_config_expiry_date(timestamp_t **timestamp, const char *var, const char *value)
+{
+	if (!value)
+		return config_error_nonbool(var);
+	if (!!parse_expiry_date(value, *timestamp))
+		die(_("failed to parse date_string in: '%s'"), value);
+	return 0;
+}

I was surprised that we don't already have a function that does this,
since we parse expiry config elsewhere. We do, but it's just local to
builtin/reflog.c. So perhaps as a preparatory step we should add this
function and convert reflog.c to use it, dropping its custom
parse_expire_cfg_value().

Ok, I will make these changes in reflog.c.


What's the purpose of the "!!" before parse_expiry_date()? The usual
idiom for that to normalize a non-zero value into "1", but we don't care
here. I think just:

  if (parse_expiry_date(value, timestamp))
	die(...);

would be sufficient.

No real purpose, I saw it in prev code but I guess that had a different
purpose (as you mentioned) I'll change that.

diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
index 364a537000bbb..59a35be89e511 100755
--- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
+++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
@@ -901,6 +901,31 @@ test_expect_success 'get --path barfs on boolean variable' '
 	test_must_fail git config --get --path path.bool
 '

+test_expect_success 'get --expiry-date' '
+	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
+	[date]
+	valid1 = "Fri Jun 4 15:46:55 2010"
+	valid2 = "2017/11/11 11:11:11PM"
+	valid3 = "2017/11/10 09:08:07 PM"
+	valid4 = "never"
+	invalid1 = "abc"
+	EOF
+	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	1275666415
+	1510441871
+	1510348087
+	0
+	EOF
+	{
+		git config --expiry-date date.valid1 &&
+		git config --expiry-date date.valid2 &&
+		git config --expiry-date date.valid3 &&
+		git config --expiry-date date.valid4
+	} >actual &&
+	test_cmp expect actual &&
+	test_must_fail git config --expiry-date date.invalid1
+'

This looks good to me. It would be nice if we could test a relative
value (which after all is what we'd expect to see in such a variable).
But there's no way to do it in a robust way, since it will always be
racy with the current timestamp.

We do have routines that let you make dates relative to a specific time,
but they're accessible only from t/helper/test-date, not git itself.

I don't think it's that big a deal, though. We're not testing the time
code here (which is tested elsewhere with test-date), but just that we're
passing the dates through to be parsed.

-Peff


Is there a way to incorporate that? I will try calling t/helper/test-date within a test but it would probably need to have some parts fixed like seconds
and/or minutes to prevent the race condition.


Kind Regards,
Haaris

[0]: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/git-config.txt