On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 04:21:23PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Santiago Torres <[email protected]>
>
> The current implementation of git-verify-tag omits the gpg output when
> the --format flag is passed. This may not be useful to users that want
> to see the gpg output *and* --format the output of git verify-tag.
> Instead, respect the --raw flag or the default gpg output.
Yep, this is just the matching change to patch 1. Makes sense.
> diff --git a/builtin/verify-tag.c b/builtin/verify-tag.c
> index 6fa04b751a..262e73cb45 100644
> --- a/builtin/verify-tag.c
> +++ b/builtin/verify-tag.c
> @@ -47,15 +47,13 @@ int cmd_verify_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const
> char *prefix)
> if (argc <= i)
> usage_with_options(verify_tag_usage, verify_tag_options);
>
> - if (verbose)
> + if (verbose && !format.format)
> flags |= GPG_VERIFY_VERBOSE;
Now this one's VERBOSE handling is a bit interesting. Previously we'd
set VERBOSE even if we were going to show a format. And then later we
just set the OMIT_STATUS bit, leaving VERBOSE in place:
> - flags |= GPG_VERIFY_OMIT_STATUS;
That _usually_ didn't matter because with OMIT_STATUS, we'd never enter
print_signature_buffer(), which is where VERBOSE would usually kick in.
But there's another spot we look at it:
$ grep -nC2 VERBOSE tag.c
22-
23- if (size == payload_size) {
24: if (flags & GPG_VERIFY_VERBOSE)
25- write_in_full(1, buf, payload_size);
26- return error("no signature found");
So the code prior to your patch actually had another weird behavior. Try
this:
$ git verify-tag -v --format='my tag is %(tag)' v2.21.0
my tag is v2.21.0
$ git tag -m bar foo
$ git verify-tag -v --format='my tag is %(tag)' foo
object 66395b630f8ca08705b36c359415af8b25da9a11
type commit
tag foo
tagger Jeff King <[email protected]> 1557387618 -0400
bar
error: no signature found
The "-v" only kicks in when there's an error. I think what your patch is
doing (consistently ignoring "-v" when there's a format) makes more
sense. It may be worth alerting the user when "-v" and "--format" are
used together (or arguably we should _always_ show "-v" if the user
really asked for it, but it does not make any sense to me for somebody
to do so).
> - if (format.format) {
> + if (format.format)
> if (verify_ref_format(&format))
> usage_with_options(verify_tag_usage,
> verify_tag_options);
> - }
This leaves us with a weird doubled conditional (with no braces
either!). Maybe:
if (format.format && verify_ref_format(&format))
usage_with_options(...);
?
Other than that, the patch looks good. I think it could use a test in
t7030, though.
-Peff
