Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] ref-filter: add option to match literal pattern

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> +static int filter_pattern_match(struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       if (!*filter->name_patterns)
>>>> +               return 1;
>>>> +       if (filter->match_as_path)
>>>> +               return match_name_as_path(filter->name_patterns, refname);
>>>> +       return match_pattern(filter->name_patterns, refname);
>>>> +}
>>>> @@ -1034,7 +1057,7 @@ static int ref_filter_handler(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid,
>>>> -       if (*filter->name_patterns && !match_name_as_path(filter->name_patterns, refname))
>>>> +       if (!filter_pattern_match(filter, refname))
>>>>                 return 0;
>>>
>>> I find it much more difficult to grok the new logic due to
>>> '*filter->name_patterns' having moved into the called function and its
>>> negation inside the function returning 1 which is then negated (again)
>>> upon return here. This sort of twisty logic places a higher cognitive
>>> load on the reader. Retaining the original logic makes the code far
>>> simpler to understand:
>>>
>>>     if (*filter->name_patterns &&
>>>         !filter_pattern_match(filter, refname))
>>>         return 0;
>>>
>>> although it's a bit less nicely encapsulated, so I dunno...
>>
>> I think a comment before filter_pattern_match() and perhaps also one
>> inside it might help. For example something like:
>>
>> /* Return 1 if the refname matches one of the patterns, otherwise 0. */
>> static int filter_pattern_match(struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname)
>> {
>>        if (!*filter->name_patterns)
>>                return 1; /* No pattern always matches */
>>        if (filter->match_as_path)
>>                return match_name_as_path(filter->name_patterns, refname);
>>        return match_pattern(filter->name_patterns, refname);
>> }
>
> Yes, the comments do improve the situation and may be a reasonable compromise...