mirror of
https://github.com/git/git.git
synced 2024-09-28 20:51:42 +02:00
commit: forbid --pathspec-from-file --all
I forgot this in my previous patch `--pathspec-from-file` for `git commit` [1]. When both `--pathspec-from-file` and `--all` were specified, `--all` took precedence and `--pathspec-from-file` was ignored. Before `--pathspec-from-file` was implemented, this case was prevented by this check in `parse_and_validate_options()` : die(_("paths '%s ...' with -a does not make sense"), argv[0]); It is unfortunate that these two cases are disconnected. This came as result of how the code was laid out before my patches, where `pathspec` is parsed outside of `parse_and_validate_options()`. This branch is already full of refactoring patches and I did not dare to go for another one. Fix by mirroring `die()` for `--pathspec-from-file` as well. [1] Commit e440fc58 ("commit: support the --pathspec-from-file option" 2019-11-19) Reported-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Alexandr Miloslavskiy <alexandr.miloslavskiy@syntevo.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
e440fc5888
commit
509efef789
@ -347,6 +347,9 @@ static const char *prepare_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix
|
||||
if (interactive)
|
||||
die(_("--pathspec-from-file is incompatible with --interactive/--patch"));
|
||||
|
||||
if (all)
|
||||
die(_("--pathspec-from-file with -a does not make sense"));
|
||||
|
||||
if (pathspec.nr)
|
||||
die(_("--pathspec-from-file is incompatible with pathspec arguments"));
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -127,4 +127,10 @@ test_expect_success 'only touches what was listed' '
|
||||
verify_expect
|
||||
'
|
||||
|
||||
test_expect_success '--pathspec-from-file and --all cannot be used together' '
|
||||
restore_checkpoint &&
|
||||
test_must_fail git commit --pathspec-from-file=- --all -m "Commit" 2>err &&
|
||||
test_i18ngrep "[-]-pathspec-from-file with -a does not make sense" err
|
||||
'
|
||||
|
||||
test_done
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user