Re: [PATCH] rebase -x: sanity check command
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 22:56:05 +0100 (STD)
- From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase -x: sanity check command
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > If the user gives an empty argument to --exec then the rebase starts to
> > run before erroring out with
> > error: missing arguments for exec
> > error: invalid line 2: exec
> > You can fix this with 'git rebase --edit-todo' and then run 'git rebase --continue'.
> > Or you can abort the rebase with 'git rebase --abort'.
> Hmph. I do agree that the above makes an unfortunate end-user
> experience, but I would sort-of imagine that it would even be nicer
> for such an empty exec to behave as if it were "exec false" but with
> less severe error message, i.e. a way for the user to say "I want to
> break the sequence here and get an interactive session". We may not
> even need to add the "break" insn if we go that way and there is one
> less thing for users to learn. I dunno, but I tend to prefer giving
> a useful and safe behaviour to interactive users other than erroring
> out, when there _is_ such a safe behaviour that is obvious from the
> situation, and I feel that an empty "exec" is such a case.
That would make things unnecessarily confusing. An empty command is not
`false` with a gentler error message. An empty command is a missing
I am, however, concerned that special-casing an empty command will not
make things better: if the user called `git rebase --exec=fasle`, they
will *still* have to clean up their edit script.
Or just `git rebase --abort`, which I would do whether I had forgotten to
specify a command or whether I had a typo in my command.
> > Also check that the command does not contain any newlines as the
> > todo-list format is unable to cope with multiline commands. Note that
> > this changes the behavior, before this change one could do
> > git rebase --exec='echo one
> > exec echo two'
> It is very good to check the input, regardless of what an empty
> "exec" should do.
Should we then also check for incorrect quoting, missing commands, other
errors? I am not sure that this path leads to sanity.