[PATCH 2 of 3 V2] shelve: refactor option combination check to add new one easily

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 06/05/2014 07:12 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User FUJIWARA Katsunori <foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp>
> # Date 1401977395 -32400
> #      Thu Jun 05 23:09:55 2014 +0900
> # Node ID c90c042600bcb28108366b8c08a06d9ac3259ab7
> # Parent  804a341610d154c8a2a4d3d63e36ff2cf08acc4f
> shelve: refactor option combination check to add new one easily
>
> Before this patch, the name of the newly added option should be added
> into each strings to be passed to 'checkopt()' internal function:
> these are white-space-separated list of un-acceptable option names.
>
> The name of new option should be added into multiple strings, because
> every options can belong to only one category of 'create', 'cleanup',
> 'delete' or 'list'.
>
> In addition of this redundancy, each strings passed to 'checkopt()'
> are already too long to include new one.
>
> This patch refactors option combination check to add new one easily in
> succeeding patch.
>
> New 'checkopt()' takes only one of categories ('cleanup', 'delete' or
> 'list'), and checks whether option allowed only for other categories
> is specified or not, if specified category is activated in 'opts'.
>
> 'date' entry is listed in 'allowableopts', but commented out, because:
>
>    - 'date' shouldn't be checked for test
>
>      checking 'date' causes unexpected failure of 'test-shelve.t',
>      because 'run-test.py' puts "[default] shelve = --date '0 0'" into
>      hgrc.
>
>    - but explicit listing it up can advertise that this ignoring is
>      intentional

I'm unsure about the english in this description. I would like a native 
speaker to decide between "it's ok lets queue this" and "This needs a 
resend"

-- 
Pierre-Yves David