Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 19, 2016, 18:18 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwpi7eosk.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1474073981-96620-1-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com>

Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>  static void show_ce_entry(const char *tag, const struct cache_entry *ce)
>  {
> +	struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
>  	int len = max_prefix_len;
> +	if (submodule_prefix)
> +		strbuf_addstr(&name, submodule_prefix);
> +	strbuf_addstr(&name, ce->name);

Continuing with the previous review, which concentrated on what happens in the superproject; let's see what happens in the recursive invocation in a submodule.

So a recursively spawned "ls-files --submodule-prefix=sub/" finds a path in the index PATH and forms "sub/PATH" in "name". From here on, where we used to match pathspec against ce->name, we would be matching it against name->buf.

> +	if (recurse_submodules && S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode) &&
> +	    submodule_path_match(&pathspec, name.buf, ps_matched)) {
>  		show_gitlink(ce);

This is primarily what happens in the superproject to decide if the submodule is worth showing. When we are in a submodule, we can descend into subsubmodule (if our ls-files run in the superproject passed --recurse-submodule down) from here.

> +	} else if (match_pathspec(&pathspec, name.buf, name.len,
> +				  len, ps_matched,
> +				  S_ISDIR(ce->ce_mode) ||
> +				  S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))) {

This is interesting bit to see what happens in the recursive invocation. It uses the usual match_pathspec(), as we want to be precise and correct, iow, we do not want to use DO_MATCH_SUBMODULE, aka "it might be worth descending into submodule".

Show 6 quoted lines

> +		if (tag && *tag && show_valid_bit &&
> +		    (ce->ce_flags & CE_VALID)) {
> +...
> +		}
> +		write_eolinfo(ce, ce->name);
> +		write_name(ce->name);

The prefixing is taken care of by write_name(), so it is correct to use ce->name here.

> ...  
> +	strbuf_release(&name);
>  }

OK, everything I saw so far for the recursive invocation here makes sense.

Thanks.