From: phillip.wood123@gmail.com
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "Rubén Justo" <rjusto@gmail.com>,
phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, "Git List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"Patrick Steinhardt" <ps@pks.im>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add-patch: response to invalid option
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:11:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52102ebc-ae57-4000-9990-7def910ba254@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh6g0av28.fsf@gitster.g>
On 17/04/2024 16:05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> phillip.wood123@gmail.com writes:
>
>> I tend to associate "option" with a command-line argument, not
>> interactive input to a program.
>
> "git add --help" is a bit mixed. The choices offered by "git add
> -i" are called "subcommand" (see "INTERACTIVE MODE" section), but
> the choices you give to the prompt "patch" subcommand gives you are
> presented with "You can select one of the following options and type
> return". So "option" is not too wrong, even though it is a word
> used in other contexts as well. I am OK with "option", but if I
> were adding this new error message, I probably would have said
> "unknown command".
I think "unknown command" is a good suggestion, I take your point about
"unknown key" not being so clear for users who do not use single-key input.
Best Wishes
Phillip
> In any case, whether you said option, command, or key , it is so
> obvious from the context that we could even say "error: 'W' not
> known, use '?' for help" without any noun there, so it would not
> matter too much which noun you pick.
>
> I'd still avoid "key", though, because to those who do not do
> single-key input, myself included, it does not match their user
> experience, and it is even more so if they forgot or do not even
> know that they could choose to use single-key input.
>
>> The test you are proposing only tests the last of these changes. We
>> should be aiming to write tests that (a) verify all of the changes
>> introduced by a commit (b) are likely to detect regressions to those
>> changes (c) are reasonably efficient, for example if it is possible to
>> test more than one key with a single "add -p" process we should do
>> so. As this is an interactive program I have a strong preference for
>> testing what the user sees printed to their screen, not just what
>> happens to come out on stderr.
>
> I do agree with these three points, but I do not have a strong
> opinion on the new test that was added by the patch when judging
> with them used as a yardstick.
>
> Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-18 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-15 19:00 [PATCH] add-patch: response to invalid option Rubén Justo
2024-04-16 5:51 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-04-16 19:11 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-16 9:41 ` phillip.wood123
2024-04-16 19:24 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-17 9:37 ` phillip.wood123
2024-04-17 15:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-18 15:11 ` phillip.wood123 [this message]
2024-04-16 10:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-16 13:56 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-16 15:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-16 15:46 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-16 16:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-16 19:31 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-20 11:08 ` [PATCH v2] add-patch: response to invalid command Rubén Justo
2024-04-20 17:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-21 9:51 ` [PATCH v3] add-patch: response to unknown command Rubén Justo
2024-04-21 13:18 ` phillip.wood123
2024-04-21 19:37 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-21 21:52 ` [PATCH v4] " Rubén Justo
2024-04-22 15:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-24 10:15 ` phillip.wood123
2024-04-24 15:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-29 9:48 ` Phillip Wood
2024-04-29 16:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-25 1:44 ` Jeff King
2024-04-25 2:15 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-25 20:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-25 21:00 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-25 21:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-25 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-25 22:09 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-25 22:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-25 23:46 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-26 5:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-26 16:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-26 20:21 ` Jeff King
2024-04-25 3:04 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-26 20:23 ` Jeff King
2024-04-26 20:41 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-25 8:53 ` phillip.wood123
2024-04-29 18:35 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] " Rubén Justo
2024-04-29 18:37 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] add-patch: do not show UI messages on stderr Rubén Justo
2024-04-29 19:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-30 10:52 ` Jeff King
2024-04-30 16:35 ` Rubén Justo
2024-04-30 17:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-30 17:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-30 14:47 ` phillip.wood123
2024-04-30 16:38 ` Rubén Justo
2024-05-01 15:39 ` phillip.wood123
2024-05-01 16:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-01 21:13 ` Rubén Justo
2024-05-02 16:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-29 18:37 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] add-patch: response to unknown command Rubén Justo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52102ebc-ae57-4000-9990-7def910ba254@gmail.com \
--to=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
--cc=rjusto@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.