Re: [PATCH 3/4] cat-file --textconv/--filters: allow specifying the path separately

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I think I saw some code to ensure "when giving this option you need
that option in effect, too"; they should be tested here, too, no?

No, I would rather not test for that. These conditionals are purely for
any user's convenience, in case they specify an option that has no effect.
They are absolutely not essential for the function introduced in this
patch series.

I didn't say "you would want to test these, no?", did I?

I do not want to see bugreports that say "I wanted to use this new
feature and by mistake gave only --path without giving --filter; Git
should have complained.  I found a bug, hooray!" when somebody in
the future refactors the command line option parsing and breaks the
check you already have.

Hi Junio,

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

I think I saw some code to ensure "when giving this option you need
that option in effect, too"; they should be tested here, too, no?

No, I would rather not test for that. These conditionals are purely for
any user's convenience, in case they specify an option that has no effect.
They are absolutely not essential for the function introduced in this
patch series.

I didn't say "you would want to test these, no?", did I?

I do not want to see bugreports that say "I wanted to use this new
feature and by mistake gave only --path without giving --filter; Git
should have complained.  I found a bug, hooray!" when somebody in
the future refactors the command line option parsing and breaks the
check you already have.

I added a test to verify that --path without --filters nor --textconv
complains.

Ciao,
Dscho