On 7/30/19 12:54 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30 2019, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>
>> I was almost certain that git won't let me send the same patch twice,
>> but today I've managed to double-send a directory by a mistake:
>> git send-email --to [email protected] /tmp/timens/
>> --cc 'Dmitry Safonov <[email protected]>' /tmp/timens/`
>>
>> [I haven't noticed that I put the directory twice ^^]
>>
>> Prevent this shipwreck from happening again by asking if a patch
>> is sent multiple times on purpose.
>>
>> link:
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>> Cc: Andrei Vagin <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Safonov <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> git-send-email.perl | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> There's tests for send-email in t/t9001-send-email.sh. See if what
> you're adding can have a test added, seems simple enough in this case.
I wasn't sure if that needs a test or some `--send-them-twice` option.
Decided to send it early.. Will add a test.
>
>> diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl
>> index 5f92c89c1c1b..0caafc104478 100755
>> --- a/git-send-email.perl
>> +++ b/git-send-email.perl
>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>> use Net::Domain ();
>> use Net::SMTP ();
>> use Git::LoadCPAN::Mail::Address;
>> +use experimental 'smartmatch';
>
> We depend on Perl 5.8, this bumps the requirenment to 5.10. Aside from
> that ~~ is its own can of worms in Perl and is best avoided.
Yeah, I'm not very into Perl and Stackoverflow *blush* suggested to use
~~. Will drop.
>
>> Getopt::Long::Configure qw/ pass_through /;
>>
>> @@ -658,6 +659,17 @@ sub is_format_patch_arg {
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +sub send_file_twice {
>> + my $f = shift;
>> + $_ = ask(__("Patch $f will be sent twice, continue? [y]/n "),
>
> These cases with a default should have "Y/n", not "y/n". See other
> expamples in the file.
Ok.
>
>> + default => "y",
>> + valid_re => qr/^(?:yes|y|no|n)/i);
>> + if (/^n/i) {
>> + cleanup_compose_files();
>> + exit(0);
>
> Exit if we have just one of these? More on that later...
>
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> # Now that all the defaults are set, process the rest of the command line
>> # arguments and collect up the files that need to be processed.
>> my @rev_list_opts;
>> @@ -669,10 +681,19 @@ sub is_format_patch_arg {
>> opendir my $dh, $f
>> or die sprintf(__("Failed to opendir %s: %s"), $f, $!);
>>
>> - push @files, grep { -f $_ } map { catfile($f, $_) }
>> + my @new_files = grep { -f $_ } map { catfile($f, $_) }
>> sort readdir $dh;
>> + foreach my $nfile (@new_files) {
>> + if ($nfile ~~ @files) {
>> + send_file_twice($nfile);
>> + }
>
> One non-smartmatch idiom for this is:
>
> my %seen;
> for my $file (@files) {
> if ($seen{$file}++) { ...}
> }
>
> Or:
>
> my %seen;
> my @dupes = grep { $seen{$_}++ } @files;
>
>> + }
>> + push @files, @new_files;
>> closedir $dh;
>> } elsif ((-f $f or -p $f) and !is_format_patch_arg($f)) {
>> + if ($f ~~ @files) {
>> + send_file_twice($f);
>> + }
>> push @files, $f;
>
> ...but picking up the comment above, I'd expect this to be in the "if
> ($validate)" block below or something similar, seems like this fits
> right in with --validate.
By default it's on - sounds good to me.
> Then you can also ask "do you want to send this set of patches twice
> <full list>?".
>
> Now the user is asked a file-at-a-time.
Ok, thanks for the suggestions.
--
Dmitry
