The support for assuming "push" when "-p" is given introduced in
9e140909f61 (stash: allow pathspecs in the no verb form, 2017-02-28) is
very narrow, neither "git stash -m <message> -p <pathspec>" nor "git
stash --patch <pathspec>" imply "push" and die instead. Relax this by
passing PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION when push is being assumed and then
setting "force_assume" if "--patch" was present. This means "git stash
<pathspec> -p" still dies so that it does not assume the user meant
"push" if they mistype a subcommand name but "git stash -m <message> -p
<pathspec>" will now succeed. The test added in the last commit is
adjusted to check that push is still assumed when "--patch" comes after
other options on the command-line.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
int ret;
if (argc) {
- force_assume = argc > 1 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-p");
+ int flags = PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH;
+
+ if (push_assumed)
+ flags |= PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION;
+
argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options,
push_assumed ? git_stash_usage :
- git_stash_push_usage,
- PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH);
+ git_stash_push_usage, flags);
+ force_assume |= patch_mode;
}
if (argc) {
test_path_is_file bar
'
-test_expect_success 'stash -p <pathspec> stash and restores the file' '
+test_expect_success 'stash --patch <pathspec> stash and restores the file' '
test_write_lines b c >file &&
git commit -m "add a few lines" file &&
test_write_lines a b c d >file &&
test_write_lines b c d >expect-file &&
echo changed-other-file >other-file &&
- test_write_lines s y n | git stash -p file &&
+ test_write_lines s y n | git stash -m "stash bar" --patch file &&
test_cmp expect-file file &&
echo changed-other-file >expect &&
test_cmp expect other-file &&