[PATCH RFC] formatter: convert identify command

David M. Carr david at carrclan.us
Sat Sep 15 12:41:07 CDT 2012

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 21:26 -0400, David Carr wrote:
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User David M. Carr  <david at carrclan.us>
>> # Date 1347413070 14400
>> # Node ID f16835267ff0075424d56db9aa210ef60fd578f8
>> # Parent  ba61e84ff4ce474366294df7cd3a1d6b8b5132d5
>> formatter: convert identify command
>> This is an attempt at converting the identify command to use the formatter,
>> towards "generic templating".  It was based on mpm's example in 68007f0557de.
>> After this change, identify should produce identical output unless a non-default
>> formatter is used.
> Thanks for looking into this!
> There's one philosophical point I don't think I've spelled out
> elsewhere: much like revsets obsolete most of the option switches in log
> (and many other places), display switches are obsoleted by generic
> templating. In other words, a template should have potential access to
> all the relevant data, regardless of the display switches.
> That means when something isn't shown in the plain view (because it's
> either off by default or the verbosity is too low or a switch turned it
> off), you should pass that field to formatter anyway (with data()).

Thanks for the feedback.  I had wondered how this should provide data
that wasn't desired to be displayed by the current UI switches, but
somehow missed data().  I'm going to work on a second iteration that
incorporates this (always including all relevant data, even if it
won't be displayed with the given display switches)

>>          elif default and not ui.quiet:
>>              # multiple bookmarks for a single parent separated by '/'
>>              bm = '/'.join(getbms())
>>              if bm:
>> -                output.append(bm)
>> +                fields.append('bookmarks')
>> +                fieldvalues.append(bm)
> Hmmm. I think we want to present this sort of thing as a list.

I'm not understanding what you meant by this.  I assume that you don't
mean that we should change the output when doing plain formatting, as
that would (I believe) break the compatibility rules.  Did you mean
that we should pass the multiple bookmarks to the formatter as a list,
but maintain the same plain formatting?  Could you give an example of
what this might look like?

> --
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

David M. Carr
david at carrclan.us

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list