Re: [PATCHv2] add: ignore only ignored files

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:08:19PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:

> "git add foo bar" adds neither foo nor bar when bar is ignored, but dies
> to let the user recheck their command invocation. This becomes less
> helpful when "git add foo.*" is subject to shell expansion and some of
> the expanded files are ignored.
> 
> "git add --ignore-errors" is supposed to ignore errors when indexing
> some files and adds the others. It does ignore errors from actual
> indexing attempts, but does not ignore the error "file is ignored" as
> outlined above. This is unexpected.
> 
> Change "git add foo bar" to add foo when bar is ignored, but issue
> a warning and return a failure code as before the change.
> 
> That is, in the case of trying to add ignored files we now act the same
> way (with or without "--ignore-errors") in which we act for more
> severe indexing errors when "--ignore-errors" is specified.

Thanks, this looks pretty good to me. I agree with Junio's sense that we
should cook it extra long to give people time to react.

> My sincere thanks go out to Jeff without whom I could not possibly
> have come up with a patch like this :)

:) Sorry if I was being obnoxious before. Sometimes contributors need a
gentle push to keep going, but I should know by now that you are not
such a person.

> diff --git a/t/t3700-add.sh b/t/t3700-add.sh
> index fe274e2..f7ff1f5 100755
> --- a/t/t3700-add.sh
> +++ b/t/t3700-add.sh
> @@ -91,6 +91,13 @@ test_expect_success 'error out when attempting to add ignored ones without -f' '
>  	! (git ls-files | grep "\\.ig")
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'error out when attempting to add ignored ones but add others' '
> +	touch a.if &&
> +	test_must_fail git add a.?? &&
> +	! (git ls-files | grep "\\.ig") &&
> +	(git ls-files | grep a.if)
> +'

I am somewhat allergic to pipes in our test suite, because they can mask
errors (especially with a negated grep, because we do not know if they
correctly produced any output at all). But I guess this is matching the
surrounding code, and it is quite unlikely for `ls-files` to fail in any
meaningful way here. So I think it's fine.

-Peff