Re: Suggestion for the "Did you mean this?" feature
Hello all, On Sun, 18 December 2016 at 20:59, Alexei Lozovsky wrote, > It's definitely a good thing for human users. For example, I am > annoyed > from time to time when I type in some long spell, mistype one minor > thing, > and the whole command fails. Then I need to press , correct the > obvious typo, and run the command again. > > Though, there is one aspect which may be the reason why git does not > have > this feature: it requires interactive input. For example, it won't > work > if some script tries to run an invalid git command. And git cannot > really > tell whether it is running interactively or in a batch mode. If it is > running in batch mode then the whole script may hang indefinitely > waiting > for nonexistent input. This also may apply to using git with pipes. > > Maybe a configuration option or some GIT_NO_PROMPT environment > variable > may be used to force disable this, but it still will be a hassle for > the > scripts. This is a good point that I didn't think of, sir. Thanks for bringing it up. It seems that in some other form git does have the feature I was suggesting. On Mon, 2016-12-19 at 13:48 +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > This feature already exists (although it's not interactive). See > help.autoCorrect in the git-config man page. "git config > help.autoCorrect -1" should to the trick. Thanks for bringing this to notice, sir. I wasn't aware of it before. It's in essence the same feature. On Mon, 2016-12-19 at 12:01 -0500, Marc Branchaud wrote: > Signed-off-by: Marc Branchaud > --- > > Awesome, I was unaware of this feature. Thanks! > > I found the message it prints a bit awkward, so here's a patch to fix > it up. > > Instead of: > >WARNING: You called a Git command named 'lgo', which does not > exist. >Continuing under the assumption that you meant 'log' >in 1.5 seconds automatically... > > it's now: > >WARNING: You called a Git command named 'lgo', which does not > exist. >Continuing in 1.5 seconds under the assumption that you meant > 'log'. Happy that my mail introduced a little change to git by revealing a not often used feature. -- Regards, Kaartic
Re: Suggestion for the "Did you mean this?" feature
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > Hello all, > > I have found the "Did you mean this?" feature of git as a very good > feature. I thought it would be even better if it took a step toward by > asking for a prompt when there was only one alternative to the command > that was entered. > > E.g. > >> unique@unique-pc:~$ git hepl >> git: 'hepl' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. >> >> Did you mean this? >> help >> [yes/No] : y >> usage: git [--version] [--help] [-C ] [-c name=value] >>[--exec-path[=]] [--html-path] [--man-path] [--info- >> path] >> > > This would make it even better for the user as it would avoid having to > correct the mistake long commands that had only a single error > (considering history feature is enabled). > > Is this is a good idea ? This feature already exists (although it's not interactive). See help.autoCorrect in the git-config man page. "git config help.autoCorrect -1" should to the trick.
Re: Suggestion for the "Did you mean this?" feature
On 18 December 2016 at 14:18, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > Hello all, > > I have found the "Did you mean this?" feature of git as a very good > feature. I thought it would be even better if it took a step toward by > asking for a prompt when there was only one alternative to the command > that was entered. > > E.g. > >> unique@unique-pc:~$ git hepl >> git: 'hepl' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. >> >> Did you mean this? >> help >> [yes/No] : y >> usage: git [--version] [--help] [-C ] [-c name=value] >>[--exec-path[=]] [--html-path] [--man-path] [--info- >> path] >> > > This would make it even better for the user as it would avoid having to > correct the mistake long commands that had only a single error > (considering history feature is enabled). > > Is this is a good idea ? It's definitely a good thing for human users. For example, I am annoyed from time to time when I type in some long spell, mistype one minor thing, and the whole command fails. Then I need to press , correct the obvious typo, and run the command again. Though, there is one aspect which may be the reason why git does not have this feature: it requires interactive input. For example, it won't work if some script tries to run an invalid git command. And git cannot really tell whether it is running interactively or in a batch mode. If it is running in batch mode then the whole script may hang indefinitely waiting for nonexistent input. This also may apply to using git with pipes. Maybe a configuration option or some GIT_NO_PROMPT environment variable may be used to force disable this, but it still will be a hassle for the scripts.
Re: Suggestion for the "Did you mean this?" feature
On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 14:16 +0100, Stephan Beyer wrote: > I cannot tell if this is a good idea (or why it would be a bad idea) > but > why do you restrict your suggestion to the case when there is only > one > alternative? > > Why not also something like: > > --- > $ git sta > git: 'sta' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. > > Did you mean one of these? > [1] status > [2] stage > [3] stash > You can choose or quit [1,2,3,q]: That would be fine too. Just thought it would be a good start to start with a simple case. Also, I wasn't sure if there were any drawback's that I was missing. I guess if it was implemented it wouldn't be difficult to extend it further. -- Regards, Kaartic
Re: Suggestion for the "Did you mean this?" feature
Hi, On 12/18/2016 01:18 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > I have found the "Did you mean this?" feature of git as a very good > feature. I thought it would be even better if it took a step toward by > asking for a prompt when there was only one alternative to the command > that was entered. > > E.g. > >> unique@unique-pc:~$ git hepl >> git: 'hepl' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. >> >> Did you mean this? >> help >> [yes/No] : y >> usage: git [--version] [--help] [-C ] [-c name=value] >>[--exec-path[=]] [--html-path] [--man-path] [--info- >> path] >> > > This would make it even better for the user as it would avoid having to > correct the mistake long commands that had only a single error > (considering history feature is enabled). > > Is this is a good idea ? I cannot tell if this is a good idea (or why it would be a bad idea) but why do you restrict your suggestion to the case when there is only one alternative? Why not also something like: --- $ git sta git: 'sta' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. Did you mean one of these? [1] status [2] stage [3] stash You can choose or quit [1,2,3,q]: --- Best Stephan
