refactored

[st-gb]

Hi Thomas.

Endlich habe ich Zeit und Muße gehabt, das umzusetzen (Deine E-Mail vom 04.Juli soll nicht umsinst gewesen sein ;-) ). Gucke Dir mal die Änderungen an und übernimm sie dann.

Gru

[t-b]

@st-gb Sorry for the late response.

I like the per check error messages but I don't think that creating a separate file for the test function itself is good.

I'm replying with some more comments inline.

Please also:

• Explain why you did the change in the commit message
• Don't commit commented out code

[t-b]

@st-gb Please write in english so that others can follow as well.

[st-gb]

Hi Thomas. So I have to update my branch with a new commit including your requested changes, right?

[t-b]

@st-gb Yes please add a new commit or even better squash your new changes into the existing commit and force push.

[st-gb]

I wrote a concatenate function for the causes. But I would like the testing be callable also from outside the pre-commit hook.

[st-gb]

You can see the latest changes here: https://github.com/st-gb/git-pre-commit-hook-windows-filenames/tree/suggestion_by_StGb

Now we have to decide whether single shell file for pre-commit file or not. pro & contra: pro: test without changing the repository. contra: current path problems (when called from another directory than where the pre-commit resides maybe testIfWinValidFileName.sh can't be found)

[t-b]

@st-gb Sorry for not getting back earlier. As mentioned I'd like to stick with single file as it is more convenient.

[st-gb]

I strongly prefer my solution with a dedicated shell script for both testing and changing because of "separation of concerns" principle. If you stick to your suggestion then I'd like to put code from my "testIfWinValidFileName.sh" into function(s) within the "pre-commit" shell script. Please do this in your repository at first. I need some more time to do this for my one because I am busy ATM.

[t-b]

No reply for two years closing.