Re: [Outreachy] Introduction
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 15, 2020, 13:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <95c90e7a-8f4c-32b9-2b0e-9efce2acfb8e@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAHjREB7xhBWHUCJ+T78i6dDGQr055sMAaYzG4gaQSr0T88cseg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Sangeeta
On 15/10/2020 11:18, Sangeeta NB wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Hey, > >> I've got a fixup which I'll post after this which gets rid of the global >> flag and instead uses a flag in struct diff_options. > > Thanks for the patch, I was thinking about something on similar lines > but couldn't come up with anything.
As we store the config options in default_diff_options and then copy them across at the beginning of repo_setup_diff() we can use a flag in struct diff_options which is set by handle_ignore_submodule_arg() to tell if we need to initialize opts->flags.ignore_untracked_in_submodules in repo_setup_diff()
Show 22 quoted lines
> Also, one thing I observed that when I add a printf statement in
> wt-status.c, something like this:
>
> --- a/wt-status.c
> +++ b/wt-status.c
> @@ -601,11 +601,11 @@ static void
> wt_status_collect_changes_worktree(struct wt_status *s)
> rev.diffopt.output_format |= DIFF_FORMAT_CALLBACK;
> rev.diffopt.flags.dirty_submodules = 1;
> rev.diffopt.ita_invisible_in_index = 1;
> + printf("a printf statement\n");
> if (!s->show_untracked_files)
>
> then git status shows output:
>
> sh-3.2$ git status -s -uno --ignore-submodules=none
> a printf statement
> m submod
>
> which is what is expected. But when I comment out the printf statement
> it again gives no output. I couldn't understand why this is taking
> place and how can a printf line modify the behavior of git status.Are you adding the printf and then running t3600? If so then the extra line of output breaks a lot of tests which in turn breaks to setup for the test that was failing so there are uncommitted changes. Unfortunately it is hard to run a subset of tests in a lot the test scripts as there are implicit dependencies between the individual tests them.
Show 6 quoted lines
>> I thinking it would be worth considering if >> some of them should instead be changed to pass --ignore-submodules=none >> rather than changing the expected result. > > Ya, that's a good suggestion. Would look at those tests again and see > if I can pass the --ignore-submodules=none option.
For the diff tests I think we want to test the new default and check that --ignore-submodules=none works. I think for the other tests we probably want to just add --ignore-submodules=none
I'm afraid I'm still no closer to figuring out why that test in t3600 fails
Phillip
> Thanks >