Re: [PATCH v1] config: add '--sources' option to print the source of a config value
From: Lars Schneider <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:08:09
On 05 Feb 2016, at 14:58, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:quoted
quoted
I'm not sure returning here is the best idea. We won't have a config filename if we are reading from "-c", but if we return early from this function, it parses differently than every other line. E.g., with your patch, if I do: git config -c foo.bar=true config --sources --list I'll get: /home/peff/.gitconfig <tab> user.name=Jeff King /home/peff/.gitconfig <tab> user.email=peff@peff.net ...etc... foo.bar=true If somebody is parsing this as a tab-delimited list, then instead of the source field for that line being empty, it is missing (and it looks like "foo.bar=true" is the source file). I think it would be more friendly to consumers of the output to have a blank (i.e., set "fn" to the empty string and continue in the function).Or to come up with a special string to denote config values specified on the command line. Maybe somehting like <command line> <tab> foo.bar=true I acknowledge that "<command line>" would be a valid filename on some filesystems, but I think the risk is rather low that someone would actually be using that name for a Git config file.Yeah, I agree it's unlikely. And the output is already ambiguous, as the first field could be a blob (though I guess the caller knows if they passed "--blob" or not). If we really wanted an unambiguous output, we could have something like "file:...", "blob:...", etc. But that's a bit less readable for humans, and I don't think solves any real-world problems. So I think it would be OK to use "<command line>" here, as long as the token is documented.
Sounds good to me. I'll add it!
Are there any other reasons why current_config_filename() would return NULL, besides command-line config? I don't think so. It looks like we can read config from stdin, but we use the token "<stdin>" there for the name field (another ambiguity!).
During my testing I haven't found any other case either. To be honest I didn't know the "stdin" way to set the config! I added a test case for that, too! Thanks, Lars