From: Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:56:35 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] fsexcludes: add a programmatic way to exclude files from git's working directory traversal logic
Message-ID: <082cda6c-eb9f-c853-c09b-e0d3bc04cb9c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN0heSpKzG93OcAAAoHQxURVGsHFWz6j494C+3bezHLTOovQHA@mail.gmail.com>



On 4/10/2018 6:09 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On 10 April 2018 at 23:04, Ben Peart <Ben.Peart@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> The File System Excludes module is a new programmatic way to exclude files and
>> folders from git's traversal of the working directory.  fsexcludes_init() should
>> be called with a string buffer that contains a NUL separated list of path names
>> of the files and/or directories that should be included.  Any path not listed
>> will be excluded. The paths should be relative to the root of the working
>> directory and be separated by a single NUL.
>>
>> The excludes logic in dir.c has been updated to honor the results of
>> fsexcludes_is_excluded_from().  If fsexcludes does not exclude the file, the
>> normal excludes logic is also checked as it could further reduce the set of
>> files that should be included.
> 
> Here you mention a change in dir.c...
> 
>>   Makefile     |   1 +
>>   fsexcludes.c | 210 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   fsexcludes.h |  27 +++++++
>>   3 files changed, 238 insertions(+)
> 
> ... but this patch does not seem to touch dir.c at all.
> 

Oops! Fixed in V2.

>> +static int check_fsexcludes_hashmap(struct hashmap *map, const char *pattern, int patternlen)
>> +{
>> +       struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +       struct fsexcludes fse;
>> +       char *slash;
>> +
>> +       /* Check straight mapping */
>> +       strbuf_reset(&sb);
> 
> You could drop this strbuf_reset(). Or did you intend to use a static
> struct strbuf?
> 

Good point, fixed in V2.

>> +       /*
>> +        * Check to see if it matches a directory or any path
>> +        * underneath it.  In other words, 'a/b/foo.txt' will match
>> +        * '/', 'a/', and 'a/b/'.
>> +        */
>> +       slash = strchr(sb.buf, '/');
>> +       while (slash) {
>> +               fse.pattern = sb.buf;
>> +               fse.patternlen = slash - sb.buf + 1;
>> +               hashmap_entry_init(&fse, fsexcludeshash(fse.pattern, fse.patternlen));
>> +               if (hashmap_get(map, &fse, NULL)) {
>> +                       strbuf_release(&sb);
>> +                       return 0;
>> +               }
>> +               slash = strchr(slash + 1, '/');
>> +       }
> 
> Maybe a for-loop would make this slightly more obvious:
> 
> for (slash = strchr(sb.buf, '/'); slash; slash = strchr(slash + 1, '/'))
> 
> On second thought, maybe not.
> 
>> +       entry = buf = fsexcludes_data->buf;
>> +       len = fsexcludes_data->len;
>> +       for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
>> +               if (buf[i] == '\0') {
>> +                       fsexcludes_hashmap_add(map, entry, buf + i - entry);
>> +                       entry = buf + i + 1;
>> +               }
>> +       }
>> +}
> 
> Very minor: I would have found "buf - entry + i" clearer here and later,
> but I'm sure you'll find someone of the opposing opinion (e.g.,
> yourself). ;-)
> 
>> +static int check_directory_hashmap(struct hashmap *map, const char *pathname, int pathlen)
>> +{
>> +       struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +       struct fsexcludes fse;
>> +
>> +       /* Check for directory */
>> +       strbuf_reset(&sb);
> 
> Same comment as above about this spurious reset.

Good point, fixed in V2.

> 
>> +       if (hashmap_get(map, &fse, NULL)) {
>> +               strbuf_release(&sb);
>> +               return 0;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       strbuf_release(&sb);
>> +       return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Return 1 for exclude, 0 for include and -1 for undecided.
>> + */
>> +int fsexcludes_is_excluded_from(struct index_state *istate,
>> +       const char *pathname, int pathlen, int dtype)
>> +{
> 
> Will we at some point regret not being able to "return negative on
> error"? I guess that would be "-2" or "negative other than -1".
> 

This function is modeled after the other is_excluded_from* functions in 
dir.c so that the return value can be handled the same way.  I don't 
anticipate any need for change but you're right, we could return some 
other "negative other than -1" if it was ever needed.

>> +void fsexcludes_init(struct strbuf *sb) {
>> +       fsexcludes_initialized = 1;
>> +       fsexcludes_data = *sb;
>> +}
> 
> Grabbing the strbuf's members looks a bit odd. Is this
> performance-sensitive enough that you do not want to make a copy? If a
> caller releases its strbuf, which would normally be a good thing to do,
> we may be in big trouble later. (Not only may .buf be stale, .len may
> indicate we actually have something to read.)
> 
> I can understand that you do not want to pass a pointer+len, and that it
> is not enough to pass sb.buf, since the string may contain nuls.
> 
> Maybe detach the original strbuf? That way, if a caller releases its
> buffer, that is a no-op. A caller which goes on to use its buffer should
> fail quickly and obviously. Right now, an incorrect caller would
> probably fail more subtly and less reproducibly.
> 
> In any case, maybe document this in the .h-file?

Great suggestion!  I was looking for a better way to ensure the buffer 
ownership transfer was robust.  I'll do both strbuf_detach() and update 
the header file.  Thank you.

> 
> Martin
>