Re: [Outreachy] [PATCH v2] diff: do not show submodule with untracked files as "-dirty"
- From
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
- Date
- Oct 21, 2020, 17:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPig+cSi1SSZTS86-6_0gDCeDqPCEvT+Lh3gLXe--Y1PDJSDfw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20201021131012.20703-1-sangunb09@gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:10 AM Sangeeta Jain <sangunb09@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> [...] > This patch makes `git diff HEAD` consistent with `git describe --dirty` > when a submodule contains untracked files by making > `--ignore-submodules=untracked` the default. > [...] > Signed-off-by: Sangeeta Jain <sangunb09@gmail.com> > --- > diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c > @@ -4585,6 +4585,9 @@ void repo_diff_setup(struct repository *r, struct diff_options *options) > + if(!options->flags.ignore_submodule_set) > + options->flags.ignore_untracked_in_submodules = 1;
Style nit: insert a space between 'if' and the opening parenthesis
Show 6 quoted lines
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c > @@ -1678,6 +1679,8 @@ unsigned is_submodule_modified(const char *path, int ignore_untracked) > if (ignore_untracked) > strvec_push(&cp.args, "-uno"); > + else > + strvec_push (&cp.args, "--ignore-submodules=none");
Style nit: use TAB for indentation, not spaces
Style nit: drop space between 'strvec_push' and open parenthesis
Show 8 quoted lines
> diff --git a/t/t7064-wtstatus-pv2.sh b/t/t7064-wtstatus-pv2.sh > @@ -503,6 +503,31 @@ test_expect_success 'untracked changes in added submodule (AM S..U)' ' > +test_expect_success 'untracked changes in added submodule (A. S...) (untracked ignored)' ' > + ( cd super_repo && > + ## create untracked file in the submodule. > + ( cd sub1 && > + echo "xxxx" >file_in_sub > + ) &&
I realize that you're following style of some, but not all tests, in this file, but current the way we format subshells these days is:
(
cd foo &&
...
) &&Whether you should adopt modern style or use existing style is a judgment call. (If I was doing this, I might be inclined to follow modern style rather than introducing even more of the unwanted old style.)
But for really silly stuff like the 'echo', you don't need a subshell at all, so it would be cleaner to write it like this without the subshell:
echo "xxxx" >sub1/file_in_sub &&
(But again, I see that you're just following local style.)
Show 8 quoted lines
> +test_expect_success 'staged and untracked changes in added submodule (AM S.M.) (untracked ignored)' ' > + ( cd super_repo && > + ( cd sub1 && > + ## stage new changes in tracked file. > + git add file_in_sub && > + ## create new untracked file. > + echo "yyyy" >>another_file_in_sub > + ) &&
These days, `git` also understands -C, so this subshell likewise is not necessary, and:
git -C sub1 add file_in_sub &&
echo "yyyy" >>sub1/another_file_in_subwould be equivalent. (But perhaps that diverges too much from existing style in the file? It's a judgment call.)
> diff --git a/t/t7506-status-submodule.sh b/t/t7506-status-submodule.sh > @@ -94,36 +94,60 @@ test_expect_success 'status with added file in submodule (short)' ' > +test_expect_success 'status with untracked file in submodule (untracked ignored)' ' > + (cd sub && git reset --hard) &&
These one-liner subshells are super common in this particular script. These days we'd write this as:
git -C sub reset --hard &&
Again, it's a judgment call whether to go with modern style or follow existing style of the file.
Another option is to have a preparatory patch which first modernizes the script, and then your new tests would follow modern style. But, that may be outside of scope of your submission.
To summarize: The only really actionable review comments are the minor style nits in the C code. The nits about style issues in the tests are judgement calls, and could be handled (by someone) at a later date.