New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
hook: Provide GIT_HOOK for all hooks #1271
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There are issues in commit dd3f440: |
dd3f440
to
20b0fed
Compare
There are issues in commit 20b0fed: |
eb03517
to
875ff0f
Compare
/preview |
Preview email sent as pull.1271.git.git.1653683544318.gitgitgadget@gmail.com |
5337d67
to
91a01c2
Compare
/preview |
Preview email sent as pull.1271.git.git.1653684451756.gitgitgadget@gmail.com |
/submit |
Submitted as pull.1271.git.git.1653684771998.gitgitgadget@gmail.com To fetch this version into
To fetch this version to local tag
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> From: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
>
> In order to allow users to use one executable for multiple hooks,
> provide a GIT_HOOK variable that is set to the hook event that triggered
> it.
I agree it would be handy to give hooks to play multiple roles by
dispatching on its name, just like our "git" potty can dispatch
built-ins when called "git-foo".
I do not think GIT_HOOK is a good name for the environment variable
that is used for that purpose, though. It is easily mistaken as if
end users can set GIT_HOOK environment themselves to point at a
program and cause "git" to run it whenever it may want to run any
hook, for example. IOW, the name is overly broad.
How about calling it with a name with "HOOK" and "NAME" in it?
> diff --git a/t/t1800-hook.sh b/t/t1800-hook.sh
> index 26ed5e11bc8..a22c1a82a5e 100755
> --- a/t/t1800-hook.sh
> +++ b/t/t1800-hook.sh
> @@ -38,6 +38,18 @@ test_expect_success 'git hook run: basic' '
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'git hook run: $GIT_HOOK' '
> + test_hook test-hook <<-EOF &&
> + printenv GIT_HOOK
> + EOF
This will introduce the first hit from "git grep printenv".
It is not even in POSIX. Do we absolutely need to?
Perhaps
echo "$GIT_HOOK"
is sufficient, or if you want to distinguish an unset and set to
empty string:
if test "${GIT_HOOK+set}" = "set"
then
echo "GIT_HOOK is set to '$GIT_HOOK'"
else
echo "GIT_HOOK is unset"
exit 1
fi
may be another way.
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + test-hook
> + EOF
For one-liner,
echo test-hook >expect &&
should be a more compact and equally understandable way to write this.
> + git hook run test-hook 2>actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +' |
5aac969
to
3d49598
Compare
On the Git mailing list, John Cai wrote (reply to this): Hi Junio
On 27 May 2022, at 17:20, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> From: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
>>
>> In order to allow users to use one executable for multiple hooks,
>> provide a GIT_HOOK variable that is set to the hook event that triggered
>> it.
>
> I agree it would be handy to give hooks to play multiple roles by
> dispatching on its name, just like our "git" potty can dispatch
> built-ins when called "git-foo".
>
> I do not think GIT_HOOK is a good name for the environment variable
> that is used for that purpose, though. It is easily mistaken as if
> end users can set GIT_HOOK environment themselves to point at a
> program and cause "git" to run it whenever it may want to run any
> hook, for example. IOW, the name is overly broad.
Yes, I see what you mean. It would be good to pick a more specific variable.
>
> How about calling it with a name with "HOOK" and "NAME" in it?
For lack of imagination, would GIT_HOOK_NAME still be too broad?
>
>> diff --git a/t/t1800-hook.sh b/t/t1800-hook.sh
>> index 26ed5e11bc8..a22c1a82a5e 100755
>> --- a/t/t1800-hook.sh
>> +++ b/t/t1800-hook.sh
>> @@ -38,6 +38,18 @@ test_expect_success 'git hook run: basic' '
>> test_cmp expect actual
>> '
>>
>> +test_expect_success 'git hook run: $GIT_HOOK' '
>> + test_hook test-hook <<-EOF &&
>> + printenv GIT_HOOK
>> + EOF
>
> This will introduce the first hit from "git grep printenv".
>
> It is not even in POSIX. Do we absolutely need to?
certainly not, I'll change this.
>
> Perhaps
>
> echo "$GIT_HOOK"
>
> is sufficient, or if you want to distinguish an unset and set to
> empty string:
>
> if test "${GIT_HOOK+set}" = "set"
> then
> echo "GIT_HOOK is set to '$GIT_HOOK'"
> else
> echo "GIT_HOOK is unset"
> exit 1
> fi
>
> may be another way.
>
>> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
>> + test-hook
>> + EOF
>
> For one-liner,
>
> echo test-hook >expect &&
>
> should be a more compact and equally understandable way to write this.
good point!
>
>> + git hook run test-hook 2>actual &&
>> + test_cmp expect actual
>> +' |
On the Git mailing list, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote (reply to this): On Fri, May 27 2022, John Cai via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
>
> In order to allow users to use one executable for multiple hooks,
> provide a GIT_HOOK variable that is set to the hook event that triggered
> it.
You can use one executable for multiple hooks already, I've written such
dispatchers that just look at the argv of the process.
What we will need something like this for is for the config-based hooks,
and I think it makes sense to have a facility that's portable across
both methods of hook invocations.
I really don't mind this change, and I think it's a good one to
make.
But the commit message & documentation here really should be updated to
reflect that this is currently superfluous to inspecting argv in the
hook process, and that we're providing this anyway for XYZ reason. |
User |
b2201ad
to
b80d92a
Compare
Currently, in order to use one executable for multiple hooks, the executable can look at argv. With config based hooks, that can't be relied upon anymore. To address this, provide a GIT_HOOK_NAME variable that is set to the hook event that triggered it. For non config based hooks, this is superfluous to simply inspecting argv. However, a GIT_HOOK_NAME var provides a common mechanism between config based hooks and non config based hooks. Signed-off-by: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
b80d92a
to
31fe4e0
Compare
On the Git mailing list, John Cai wrote (reply to this): Hi Ævar
On 28 May 2022, at 11:53, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Fri, May 27 2022, John Cai via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
>> From: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
>>
>> In order to allow users to use one executable for multiple hooks,
>> provide a GIT_HOOK variable that is set to the hook event that triggered
>> it.
>
> You can use one executable for multiple hooks already, I've written such
> dispatchers that just look at the argv of the process.
>
> What we will need something like this for is for the config-based hooks,
> and I think it makes sense to have a facility that's portable across
> both methods of hook invocations.
Ah yes, thanks for pointing this out. I will re-roll the commit message as we
as clarity the documentation.
>
> I really don't mind this change, and I think it's a good one to
> make.
>
> But the commit message & documentation here really should be updated to
> reflect that this is currently superfluous to inspecting argv in the
> hook process, and that we're providing this anyway for XYZ reason. |
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
> But the commit message & documentation here really should be updated to
> reflect that this is currently superfluous to inspecting argv in the
> hook process, and that we're providing this anyway for XYZ reason.
Or this probably is better added as part of the series that actually
adds the mechanism to trigger hooks defined in the configuration
file.
Then "we do not need it now, but we will in the future because we
will do XYZ" does not have to be said, which is a huge plus.
Thanks. |
On the Git mailing list, John Cai wrote (reply to this): On 28 May 2022, at 13:24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> But the commit message & documentation here really should be updated to
>> reflect that this is currently superfluous to inspecting argv in the
>> hook process, and that we're providing this anyway for XYZ reason.
>
> Or this probably is better added as part of the series that actually
> adds the mechanism to trigger hooks defined in the configuration
> file.
I don't mind including this as part of Ævar's config hook series. On the other
hand this patch could allow the config hooks series to be smaller and more
easily reviewed.
I'm okay either way--maybe Ævar can speak to what his preference is.
>
> Then "we do not need it now, but we will in the future because we
> will do XYZ" does not have to be said, which is a huge plus.
>
> Thanks.
thanks
John |
In order to allow users to use one executable for multiple hooks,
provide a GIT_HOOK variable that is set to the hook event that triggered
it.
CC: Emily Shaffer emilyshaffer@google.com
cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com