[PATCH 3 of 8] ignore: add ui to ignore stack

[Matt Mackall]

On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 23:03 -0700, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> 
> On 05/13/2015 06:34 PM, Durham Goode wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/13/15, 6:20 PM, "Pierre-Yves David" <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/13/2015 08:13 AM, Durham Goode wrote:
> >>> # HG changeset patch
> >>> # User Durham Goode <durham at fb.com>
> >>> # Date 1431468882 25200
> >>> #      Tue May 12 15:14:42 2015 -0700
> >>> # Node ID 5af3cb8572c462a3f21c45f7f8d9fdb0289dd373
> >>> # Parent  1236d101b01d251715016df1b0ba53d3a37edfb8
> >>> ignore: add ui to ignore stack
> >>>
> >>> In a future patch we will need access to the ui.config inside the
> >>> ignore logic.
> >>> This patch adds it to the functions.  A future patch will also remove
> >>> the
> >>> redundant 'warn' variable here.
> >>
> >> Do you have to pass the whole ui object there. Can't we just use the one
> >> boolean of interested in there? I'm getting concerns at the `ui` object
> >> getting its own cult, leaking everywhere, having small and simple piece
> >> of code depending on it.
> >
> > I figured the fact that it needs to call warn() means the ui probably
> > should've been passed in to begin with (since passing the warn function is
> > funky).  In this case, since it needs both ui.warn and ui.config, it seems
> > like passing the ui makes sense.
> >
> > If people disagree, I can change it.  I just think passing the ui is
> > cleaner and the down sides are minimal.
> 
> The warn function is a fairly agnostic way to "express error message if 
> any", we use this pattern in some other part of the code.
> 
> Passing the ui object is definitely not a crazy approach. But I would 
> like to avoid the automatism of having ui object everywhere. I'll not 
> fight too much about that if the rest of the project disagree.

It's not obvious to me that we need a config knob here, but perhaps I'm
missing something.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.