Re: [PATCHv2 08/14] completion: let 'for-each-ref' and 'ls-remote' filter matching refs
- From
SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 28, 2017, 15:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAM0VKjkMLdTzFyAdgnJsFGk4JpR-oBdnXRoeskRRSbsvT8TXcg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170324194237.td2nsiyuatexuxo2@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 04:29:18PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>> case "$cur_" in
>> refs|refs/*)
>> format="refname"
>> - refs="${cur_%/*}"
>> + refs=("$match*" "$match*/**")
>> track=""
>
> Working on the aforementioned patch, I noticed that for-each-ref's
> matching is a little tricky due to its path semantics. So I wanted to
> double-check your patterns. :) I think these should do the right thing.Yeah, I always thought that it's weird that globbing in for-each-ref behaves differently from globbing in ls-remote or refspecs, but there is nothing we can do about it now.
Anyway, this is why the tests added in this patch include e.g. both 'matching-branch' and 'matching/branch'.