Replace invalid config key scriv.user_nick with scriv.userNick #131
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is a proposed fix for #130: it replaces
scriv.user_nickwithscriv.userNick.It's rather hard to write a regression test for the issue, since the error only occurs when invoking
gititself, but I've tightened up theFakeGit.set_configmethod to reject most config keys that Git wouldn't allow. TheGIT_CONFIG_KEYregex is based on my best guesses from reading the git-config docs: as I understand it, section names allow alphanumeric characters, "-" and ".", subsection names allow almost any character, and the key name must start with an alphabetic character and contain only alphabetic characters and "-".I believe no backwards compatibility mechanism is needed here: it looks as though the old config key
scriv.user_nickisn't accepted by Git, so presumably no-one is using this feature successfully. I did wonder whether this represents a recent change in Git, but I haven't managed to find any evidence that that's the case.