Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] rev-list: allow filtering of provided items
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2021, 18:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YGyinyL2UU421hoX@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <0e26fee8b31e46e87fb9fa1ac599506502a9d622.1615813673.git.ps@pks.im>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 02:15:05PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> When providing an object filter, it is currently impossible to also > filter provided items. E.g. when executing `git rev-list HEAD` , the > commit this reference points to will be treated as user-provided and is > thus excluded from the filtering mechanism. This makes it harder than > necessary to properly use the new `--filter=object:type` filter given > that even if the user wants to only see blobs, he'll still see commits > of provided references. > > Improve this by introducing a new `--filter-provided` option to the > git-rev-parse(1) command. If given, then all user-provided references > will be subject to filtering.
I think this option is a good thing to have.
The name seems a little confusing to me, as I can read is as both "please filter the provided objects" and "a filter has been provided". I guess "--filter-print-provided" would be more clear. And also the default, so you'd want "--no-filter-print-provided". That's kind of clunky, though. Maybe "--filter-omit-provided"?
Show 13 quoted lines
> @@ -694,6 +698,16 @@ int cmd_rev_list(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> return show_bisect_vars(&info, reaches, all);
> }
>
> + if (filter_options.filter_wants) {
> + struct commit_list *c;
> + for (i = 0; i < revs.pending.nr; i++) {
> + struct object_array_entry *pending = revs.pending.objects + i;
> + pending->item->flags |= NOT_USER_GIVEN;
> + }
> + for (c = revs.commits; c; c = c->next)
> + c->item->object.flags |= NOT_USER_GIVEN;
> + }You store the flag inside the filter_options struct, which implies to me that it's something that could be applied per-filter (at least in theory; the command line option doesn't allow us to distinguish).
But here you treat it as a global flag that munges the NOT_USER_GIVEN flags. Given that it's inside the filter_options struct, and that you propagate it via transform_to_combine_type(), I'd have expected the LOFC code to look at the flag and decide to ignore the whole user-given concept completely.
To be clear, I don't mind at all having it as a global that applies to all filters. I don't think the flexibility buys us anything. But since it only applies to rev-list, why not just make it a global option within rev-list?
And then these hunks:
Show 39 quoted lines
> diff --git a/list-objects-filter-options.c b/list-objects-filter-options.c
> index bb6f6577d5..2877aa9e96 100644
> --- a/list-objects-filter-options.c
> +++ b/list-objects-filter-options.c
> @@ -242,6 +242,7 @@ static void transform_to_combine_type(
> memset(filter_options, 0, sizeof(*filter_options));
> filter_options->sub = sub_array;
> filter_options->sub_alloc = initial_sub_alloc;
> + filter_options->filter_wants = sub_array[0].filter_wants;
> }
> filter_options->sub_nr = 1;
> filter_options->choice = LOFC_COMBINE;
> @@ -290,6 +291,9 @@ void parse_list_objects_filter(
> parse_error = gently_parse_list_objects_filter(
> &filter_options->sub[filter_options->sub_nr - 1], arg,
> &errbuf);
> + if (!parse_error)
> + filter_options->sub[filter_options->sub_nr - 1].filter_wants =
> + filter_options->filter_wants;
> }
> if (parse_error)
> die("%s", errbuf.buf);
> diff --git a/list-objects-filter-options.h b/list-objects-filter-options.h
> index 4d0d0588cc..5e609e307a 100644
> --- a/list-objects-filter-options.h
> +++ b/list-objects-filter-options.h
> @@ -42,6 +42,12 @@ struct list_objects_filter_options {
> */
> enum list_objects_filter_choice choice;
>
> + /*
> + * "--filter-provided" was given by the user, instructing us to also
> + * filter all explicitly provided objects.
> + */
> + unsigned int filter_wants : 1;
> +
> /*
> * Choice is LOFC_DISABLED because "--no-filter" was requested.
> */would not be needed at all.
Show 14 quoted lines
> diff --git a/pack-bitmap.c b/pack-bitmap.c > index e33805e076..5ff800316b 100644 > --- a/pack-bitmap.c > +++ b/pack-bitmap.c > @@ -1101,7 +1101,8 @@ struct bitmap_index *prepare_bitmap_walk(struct rev_info *revs, > if (haves_bitmap) > bitmap_and_not(wants_bitmap, haves_bitmap); > > - filter_bitmap(bitmap_git, wants, wants_bitmap, filter); > + filter_bitmap(bitmap_git, (filter && filter->filter_wants) ? NULL : wants, > + wants_bitmap, filter); > > bitmap_git->result = wants_bitmap; > bitmap_git->haves = haves_bitmap;
I guess we'd need to pass that flag into prepare_bitmap_walk() here so it knows not to bother with the wants-filtering. But that seems less bad that stuffing it into the filter struct.
-Peff