Re: [PATCH v1 22/45] archive: convert to use parse_pathspec

> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> @@ -232,11 +228,18 @@ static int path_exists(struct tree *tree, const char *path)
>>>>  static void parse_pathspec_arg(const char **pathspec,
>>>>               struct archiver_args *ar_args)
>>>>  {
>>>> -     ar_args->pathspec = pathspec = get_pathspec("", pathspec);
>>>> +     /*
>>>> +      * must be consistent with parse_pathspec in path_exists()
>>>> +      * Also if pathspec patterns are dependent, we're in big
>>>> +      * trouble as we test each one separately
>>>> +      */
>>>> +     parse_pathspec(&ar_args->pathspec, 0,
>>>> +                    PATHSPEC_PREFER_FULL,
>>>> +                    "", pathspec);
>>>>       if (pathspec) {
>>>>               while (*pathspec) {
>>>>                       if (!path_exists(ar_args->tree, *pathspec))
>>>> -                             die("path not found: %s", *pathspec);
>>>> +                             die(_("pathspec '%s' did not match any files"), *pathspec);
>>>>                       pathspec++;
>>>>               }
>>>
>>> You do not use ar_args->pathspec even though you used parse_pathspec()
>>> to grok it?  What's the point of this change?
>>
>> parse_pathspec() here is needed because write_archive_entries needs it
>> later.
>
> That is not the issue I was pointing out.  Even though you parse the
> pathspec into args->pathspec, the "if() { while () {} }" here still
> uses strings contained in **pathspec, as if they are literal strings
> and not ":(glob)Documentation" and such, and will not match the named
> directory.

> Technically, erroring out saying "':(glob)Documentation' does not exist
> as a path in the tree" is correct, but it would be nicer to have the
> code inspect parse_pathspec() result and independently barf, saying
> "this command does not support magic pathspecs, give me leading paths
> and nothing else", until we do support magic pathspecs, no?