Re: [PATCH 3/4] add: introduce '--resolved' option

Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:

> Michael Montalbo <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 2:58 PM Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> -       if (addremove && take_worktree_changes)
>>> -               die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "-A", "-u");
>>> +       die_for_incompatible_opt3(take_worktree_changes, "-u/--update",
>>> +                                 0 <= addremove_explicit, "-A/--all",
>>> +                                 add_resolved, "--resolved");
>>>
>>
>> Should this be "0 < addremove_explicit"?
>
> Thanks for noticing.  '0 <=' is absolutely bogus.
>
> I wonder if we should simply write 'addremove', as this part of the
> change is about rewriting the open-coded die_for_incompatible_opt2()
> in the original and using die_for_incompatible_opt3() to add a third
> option.

Not really.  I forgot that addremove is futzed before this part when
add_resolved is present, so using addremove would mean both
addremove and add_resolved are on, mistakenly complaining about -A
that the user never gave us.

So "0 < addremove_explicit" that is.

>
>>> diff --git a/t/t2207-add-resolved.sh b/t/t2207-add-resolved.sh
>>> new file mode 100755
>>> index 0000000000..f88e3f413e
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/t/t2207-add-resolved.sh
>>
>> Does this new test file need a t/meson.build entry?
>
> Yeah, it shows that I rarely exercise meson build.
>
> Thanks.