[PATCH 07/16] update submodules: introduce submodule_is_interesting

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2016, 23:06 UTC
Message-ID: <20161115230651.23953-8-sbeller@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161115230651.23953-1-sbeller@google.com>

In later patches we introduce the --recurse-submodule flag for commands that modify the working directory, e.g. git-checkout.

It is potentially expensive to check if a submodule needs an update, because a common theme to interact with submodules is to spawn a child process for each interaction.

So let's introduce a function that pre checks if a submodule needs to be checked for an update.

I am not particular happy with the name `submodule_is_interesting`, in internal iterations I had `submodule_requires_check_for_update` and `submodule_needs_update`, but I was even less happy with those names. Maybe `submodule_interesting_for_update`?

Generally this is to answer "Am I allowed to touch the submodule at all?" or: "Does the user expect me to touch it?" which includes all of creation/deletion/update.

This patch is based off a prior attempt by Jens Lehmann to add submodules to checkout.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---
 submodule.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 submodule.h |  8 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
index 38b0573..d34b721 100644
--- a/submodule.c
+++ b/submodule.c
@@ -500,6 +500,43 @@ void set_config_update_recurse_submodules(int value)
 	config_update_recurse_submodules = value;
 }
 
+int submodules_interesting_for_update(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Update can't be "none", "merge" or "rebase",
+	 * treat any value as OFF, except an explicit ON.
+	 */
+	return config_update_recurse_submodules == RECURSE_SUBMODULES_ON;
+}
+
+int submodule_is_interesting(const char *path, const unsigned char *sha1)
+{
+	/*
+	 * If we cannot load a submodule config, we cannot get the name
+	 * of the submodule, so we'd need to follow the gitlink file
+	 */
+	const struct submodule *sub;
+
+	if (!submodules_interesting_for_update())
+		return 0;
+
+	sub = submodule_from_path(sha1, path);
+	if (!sub)
+		return 0;
+
+	switch (sub->update_strategy.type) {
+	case SM_UPDATE_UNSPECIFIED:
+	case SM_UPDATE_CHECKOUT:
+		return 1;
+	case SM_UPDATE_REBASE:
+	case SM_UPDATE_MERGE:
+	case SM_UPDATE_NONE:
+	case SM_UPDATE_COMMAND:
+		return 0;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int has_remote(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid,
 		      int flags, void *cb_data)
 {
diff --git a/submodule.h b/submodule.h
index 185ad18..3df6881 100644
--- a/submodule.h
+++ b/submodule.h
@@ -57,6 +57,14 @@ extern void show_submodule_inline_diff(FILE *f, const char *path,
 		const struct diff_options *opt);
 extern void set_config_fetch_recurse_submodules(int value);
 extern void set_config_update_recurse_submodules(int value);
+/**
+ * When updating the working tree, do we need to check if the submodule needs
+ * updating. We do not require a check if we are already sure that the
+ * submodule doesn't need updating, e.g. when we are not interested in submodules
+ * or the submodule is marked uninteresting by being not initialized.
+ */
+extern int submodule_is_interesting(const char *path, const unsigned char *sha1);
+extern int submodules_interesting_for_update(void);
 extern void check_for_new_submodule_commits(unsigned char new_sha1[20]);
 extern int fetch_populated_submodules(const struct argv_array *options,
 			       const char *prefix, int command_line_option,

-- 
2.10.1.469.g00a8914