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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).