On 16/05/2025 20:10, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Historically "git stash [<options>]" was assumed to mean "git stash save
[<options>]". Since 1ada5020b38 (stash: use stash_push for no verb form,
2017-02-28) it is assumed to mean "git stash push [<options>]". As the
push subcommand supports pathspecs 9e140909f61 (stash: allow pathspecs
Can I safely do "pathspecs" -> "pathspecs," here? I found this sentence
hard to read without a comma.
I'll fix that
in the no verb form, 2017-02-28) allowed "git stash -p <pathspec>" to
mean "git stash push -p <pathspec>". This was broken in 8c3713cede7
(stash: eliminate crude option parsing, 2020-02-17) which failed to
account for "push" being added to the start of argv in cmd_stash()
before it calls push_stash() and kept looking in argv[0] for "-p" after
moving the code to push_stash().
The support for assuming "push" when "-p" is given introduced in
9e140909f61 is very narrow, neither "git stash -m <message> -p
<pathspec>" nor "git stash --patch <pathspec>" imply "push" and die
instead. Fix the regression introduced by 8c3713cede7 and relax the
behavior introduced in 9e140909f61 by passing
Hmph, is it too much work to have a patch that only fixes the
regression and another that extends the feature on top as a separate
patch? Not that I am opposed by the new feature, though.
I can do that, I was just being lazy skipping the separate regression fix
Thanks
Phillip
PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION when push is being assumed and then setting
"force_assume" if "--patch" was present. This means "git stash
<pathspec> -p" still dies so do assume the user meant "push" if they
mistype a subcommand name but "git stash -m <message> -p <pathspec>"
will now succeed.
Tests are added to prevent future regressions.
Nice.
+test_expect_success 'stash --patch <pathspec> stash and restores the file' '
+ cat file >expect-file &&
+ echo changed-file >file &&
+ echo changed-other-file >other-file &&
+ echo a | git stash -m "stash bar" --patch file &&
+ test_cmp expect-file file &&
+ echo changed-other-file >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect other-file &&
+ git stash pop &&
+ test_cmp expect other-file &&
+ echo changed-file >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect file
+'
OK.
+test_expect_success 'stash <pathspec> -p is rejected' '
+ test_must_fail git stash file -p 2>err &&
+ test_grep "subcommand wasn${SQ}t specified; ${SQ}push${SQ} can${SQ}t be assumed due to unexpected token ${SQ}file${SQ}" err
+'
Good thing to test.
