Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pathspec: allow querying for attributes
- From
- Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
- Date
- Mar 10, 2017, 19:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <80fdf152-a4a1-7078-bb86-22f11763a4bb@google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170310185908.171589-2-bmwill@google.com>
Thanks - I don't think I have any more comments on this patch set after these.
On 03/10/2017 10:59 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
> index b961f00c8..7cd5f6e3d 100644
> --- a/pathspec.c
> +++ b/pathspec.c
> @@ -87,6 +89,74 @@ static void prefix_magic(struct strbuf *sb, int prefixlen, unsigned magic)
> strbuf_addf(sb, ",prefix:%d)", prefixlen);
> }
>
> +static void parse_pathspec_attr_match(struct pathspec_item *item, const char *value)
> +{
> + struct string_list_item *si;
> + struct string_list list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> +
> + if (item->attr_check)
> + die(_("Only one 'attr:' specification is allowed."));
> +
> + if (!value || !*value)
> + die(_("attr spec must not be empty"));
> +
> + string_list_split(&list, value, ' ', -1);
> + string_list_remove_empty_items(&list, 0);
> +
> + item->attr_check = attr_check_alloc();
> + ALLOC_GROW(item->attr_match,
> + list.nr,
> + item->attr_match_alloc);If item->attr_match always starts empty, then I think an xmalloc or xcalloc suffices (and we don't need item->attr_match_alloc anymore).
We should probably also check item->attr_match above - that is, `if (item->attr_check || item->attr_match)`.
Show 46 quoted lines
> +
> + for_each_string_list_item(si, &list) {
> + size_t attr_len;
> + char *attr_name;
> + const struct git_attr *a;
> +
> + int j = item->attr_match_nr++;
> + const char *attr = si->string;
> + struct attr_match *am = &item->attr_match[j];
> +
> + switch (*attr) {
> + case '!':
> + am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSPECIFIED;
> + attr++;
> + attr_len = strlen(attr);
> + break;
> + case '-':
> + am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSET;
> + attr++;
> + attr_len = strlen(attr);
> + break;
> + default:
> + attr_len = strcspn(attr, "=");
> + if (attr[attr_len] != '=')
> + am->match_mode = MATCH_SET;
> + else {
> + am->match_mode = MATCH_VALUE;
> + am->value = xstrdup(&attr[attr_len + 1]);
> + if (strchr(am->value, '\\'))
> + die(_("attr spec values must not contain backslashes"));
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + attr_name = xmemdupz(attr, attr_len);
> + a = git_attr(attr_name);
> + if (!a)
> + die(_("invalid attribute name %s"), attr_name);
> +
> + attr_check_append(item->attr_check, a);
> +
> + free(attr_name);
> + }
> +
> + if (item->attr_check->nr != item->attr_match_nr)
> + die("BUG: should have same number of entries");I think such postcondition checks are usually not worth it, but others might differ.
Show 7 quoted lines
> +
> + string_list_clear(&list, 0);
> +}
> +
> static inline int get_literal_global(void)
> {
> static int literal = -1;