On 23-03-31 09:48AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 11:31:16AM +1100, Mark Jamsek wrote:
> > I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, I think got already provides for this
> > use case. It's as simple as `got info`, read the base commit, then
> > `{got,tog} log -c abc012`. If it's done frequently, I'd probably alias:
> > 
> >   tog log -c $(got info | grep base | cut -d' ' -f5)
> > 
> > Adding more options to do something that is already easily doable seems
> > like a path to too many options.
> > 
> > On the other hand, I like the 'log -c BASE' suggestion; it reminds me of
> > mercurial revsets, which are quite nice. And we also offer something
> > similar in Fossil with special terms  like: 'current' for the current
> > checkout; 'next' for the child of the current checkout; and 'prev' for
> > the parent of the current checkout. I use these often. So of the two
> > proposed solutions, I'd prefer going that route.
> 
> I am fine with adding such keywords to -c.
> We would need to ensure that this feature works consistently across all
> commands. Quite a bit of work might be involved in this, for test cases
> in particular.

Okay, great! Yes, I agree: it should basically work wherever we take
a hash argument so it will be quite involved. But I think it will add
enough value to make it worthwhile.

> > I'm quite busy for the next week or so but will have spare time to hack
> > on got from April 9. I was going to polish the tog test harness diff but
> > I can do this first if we want to pursue the BASE idea.
> 
> A tog test harness has much higher priority in my book :)
> Even if it's just adding very basic coverage at first, having this code
> in-tree such that others can contribute to it and add more test cases
> would be very nice.
> Our lack of automated tests for tog has already bitten us in the past.

Me too :)

I'll finish the test diff before starting anything else. The tog.c bits
are actually done so I'll try find some time over the next few days to
at least get that (plus the limited tests I've already done for testing
the test harness :) out for review. Having it in-tree will see test
coverage grow much quicker.

I'm particularly invested to get this done because I'm still stinging
from that last tog bug I introduced!

-- 
Mark Jamsek <fnc.bsdbox.org|got.bsdbox.org>
GPG: F2FF 13DE 6A06 C471 CA80  E6E2 2930 DC66 86EE CF68