On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:00:28PM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote:
> When the user introduces an invalid option, we respond with the whole
> help text.
> 
> Instead of displaying the long help description, display a short error
> message indicating the incorrectly introduced option with a note on how
> to get the help text.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com>
> ---
>  add-patch.c                |  5 ++++-
>  t/t3701-add-interactive.sh | 10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/add-patch.c b/add-patch.c
> index a06dd18985..c77902fec5 100644
> --- a/add-patch.c
> +++ b/add-patch.c
> @@ -1667,7 +1667,7 @@ static int patch_update_file(struct add_p_state *s,
>  			}
>  		} else if (s->answer.buf[0] == 'p') {
>  			rendered_hunk_index = -1;
> -		} else {
> +		} else if (s->answer.buf[0] == '?') {
>  			const char *p = _(help_patch_remainder), *eol = p;
>  
>  			color_fprintf(stdout, s->s.help_color, "%s",

I think it would've made sense to describe this change in the commit
message, as well. Currently, the reader is left wondering whether "?" is
a new shortcut that you introduce in this patch or whether it is already
documented as such.

> @@ -1691,6 +1691,9 @@ static int patch_update_file(struct add_p_state *s,
>  				color_fprintf_ln(stdout, s->s.help_color,
>  						 "%.*s", (int)(eol - p), p);
>  			}
> +		} else {
> +			err(s, _("Unknown option '%s' (use '?' for help)"),
> +			    s->answer.buf);
>  		}
>  	}
>  

I was wondering why we have `err()` here, and whether we shouldn't
convert this to use `error()` instead. Similarly, I was wondering
whether we should convert the error message to start with a lower-case
letter to match our other errors.

But scanning through "add-patch.c" I don't think that makes sense.
`err()` knows to handle colors, which `error()` doesn't. And given that
this is an interactive interface where all the other error messages
start with an upper-case letter, too, it would feel out of place to
adapt the error message.

So all of this is just to say that this looks sensible to me.

> diff --git a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh
> index bc55255b0a..b38fd5388a 100755
> --- a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh
> +++ b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh
> @@ -61,6 +61,16 @@ test_expect_success 'setup (initial)' '
>  	echo more >>file &&
>  	echo lines >>file
>  '
> +
> +test_expect_success 'invalid option' '
> +	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> +	Unknown option ${SQ}W${SQ} (use ${SQ}?${SQ} for help)
> +	EOF
> +	test_write_lines W |
> +	git -c core.filemode=true add -p 2>actual &&

Nit: it might be sensible to write the lines into a temporary file first
so that Git isn't spawned as part of a pipeline. But on the other hand
it's fine to have Git on the right-hand side of pipelines, so this way
to write it is fine, too.

Patrick

> +	test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'status works (initial)' '
>  	git add -i </dev/null >output &&
>  	grep "+1/-0 *+2/-0 file" output
> -- 
> 2.44.0.782.g480309b2c8
> 
> 
>