Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ref-filter: allow merged and no-merged filters
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Sep 11, 2020, 21:47 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqlfhgm1ez.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20200911185754.64173-3-alipman88@gmail.com>
Aaron Lipman <alipman88@gmail.com> writes:
> If passed more than one merged (or more than one no-merged) filter, refs > must be reachable from any one of the merged commits, and reachable from > none of the no-merged commits.
This mirrors how the "contains" behaves, which is good.
> Documentation/git-branch.txt | 6 +-- > Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt | 6 +-- > Documentation/git-tag.txt | 4 +-
It is a bit sad that this only removes from documentation without adding (the removal is because merged and no-merged are no longer mutually exclusive). There should be a new description on how it behaves when both of them are given---the combination were impossible so it was sufficient to say "they are incompatible", but now the user needs to know how they interact with each other.
Perhaps --contains side can already be combined so they have description we can borrow here? I didn't look too carefully.
Show 18 quoted lines
> diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
> index 110bcd741a..c04dca47d1 100644
> --- a/ref-filter.c
> +++ b/ref-filter.c
> @@ -2231,11 +2231,17 @@ void ref_array_clear(struct ref_array *array)
> }
> }
>
> -static void do_merge_filter(struct ref_filter_cbdata *ref_cbdata)
> +static void do_merge_filter(struct ref_filter_cbdata *ref_cbdata, int reachable)
> {
> + struct commit_list *check_reachable_list = reachable ?
> + ref_cbdata->filter->reachable_from :
> + ref_cbdata->filter->unreachable_from;
> +
> + if (!check_reachable_list)
> + return;
> +We do not allow decl-after-statement.
Show 23 quoted lines
> struct rev_info revs;
> int i, old_nr;
> - struct ref_filter *filter = ref_cbdata->filter;
> struct ref_array *array = ref_cbdata->array;
> struct commit **to_clear = xcalloc(sizeof(struct commit *), array->nr);
>
> @@ -2247,12 +2253,15 @@ static void do_merge_filter(struct ref_filter_cbdata *ref_cbdata)
> to_clear[i] = item->commit;
> }
>
> - filter->merge_commit->object.flags |= UNINTERESTING;
> - add_pending_object(&revs, &filter->merge_commit->object, "");
> + for (struct commit_list *rl = check_reachable_list; rl; rl = rl->next) {
> + struct commit *merge_commit = rl->item;
> + merge_commit->object.flags |= UNINTERESTING;
> + add_pending_object(&revs, &merge_commit->object, "");
> - revs.limited = 1;
> - if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs))
> - die(_("revision walk setup failed"));
> + revs.limited = 1;
> + if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs))
> + die(_("revision walk setup failed"));
> + }This looks wrong. I would have expected, instead of placing the single object to the pending queue, the loop places all the filter objects in a queue, and then makes a limited revision walk just once. In general, each time after the code makes a call to prepare_revision_walk() to perform a revision walk, before doing so again, the object flags used for the walking must be cleared. You can tell that the original code structure follows the pattern. Calling it inside a loop breaks the pattern a big time.
In any case, we mark the named commits as UNINTERESTING and walk from them and the tips of (surviving) refs to see which refs are reachable from _any_ of the named commits. The original code is a degenerated case of having only one named commit.
The idea of the original is when checking for "--merged", any ref whose tip is reachable from the named commit is merged and should be shown. That extends naturally to multiple commits given to "--merged"; any ref whose tip is reachable from one of the named commits is selected.
For "--no-merged", any ref whose tip is reachable from the named commit is merged and should be excluded. That also extends to multiple commits. Any ref whose tip is reachable from one of the "--no-merged" commit is rejected.
Show 9 quoted lines
> @@ -2263,14 +2272,19 @@ static void do_merge_filter(struct ref_filter_cbdata *ref_cbdata) > > int is_merged = !!(commit->object.flags & UNINTERESTING); > > - if (is_merged == (filter->merge == REF_FILTER_MERGED_INCLUDE)) > + if (is_merged == reachable) > array->items[array->nr++] = array->items[i]; > else > free_array_item(item);
So, in the original code, if the tip of the ref is reachable from the given commit (i.e. painted UNINTERESTING), we keep it in the array when looking for "--merged". That corresponds to the case where reachable is true. Similarly for the --no-merged case.
So the overall logic seems sound. It's just the callsite of prepare_revision_walk() which does the actual painting of the graph looks wrong.
Show 30 quoted lines
> @@ -2541,31 +2555,22 @@ int parse_opt_merge_filter(const struct option *opt, const char *arg, int unset)
> {
> struct ref_filter *rf = opt->value;
> struct object_id oid;
> - int no_merged = starts_with(opt->long_name, "no");
>
> BUG_ON_OPT_NEG(unset);
>
> - if (rf->merge) {
> - if (no_merged) {
> - return error(_("option `%s' is incompatible with --merged"),
> - opt->long_name);
> - } else {
> - return error(_("option `%s' is incompatible with --no-merged"),
> - opt->long_name);
> - }
> - }
> -
> - rf->merge = no_merged
> - ? REF_FILTER_MERGED_OMIT
> - : REF_FILTER_MERGED_INCLUDE;
> -
> if (get_oid(arg, &oid))
> die(_("malformed object name %s"), arg);
>
> - rf->merge_commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(the_repository,
> - &oid, 0);
> - if (!rf->merge_commit)
> + struct commit *merge_commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(the_repository,
> + &oid, 0);decl-after-statement here, too.
Show 10 quoted lines
> + if (!merge_commit)
> return error(_("option `%s' must point to a commit"), opt->long_name);
>
> + if (starts_with(opt->long_name, "no"))
> + commit_list_insert(merge_commit, &rf->unreachable_from);
> + else
> + commit_list_insert(merge_commit, &rf->reachable_from);
> +
> return 0;
> }Thanks.