Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pathspec: allow querying for attributes

[Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>]

On 03/10, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> Thanks - I don't think I have any more comments on this patch set
> after these.
> 
> On 03/10/2017 10:59 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> >diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
> >index b961f00c8..7cd5f6e3d 100644
> >--- a/pathspec.c
> >+++ b/pathspec.c
> >@@ -87,6 +89,74 @@ static void prefix_magic(struct strbuf *sb, int prefixlen, unsigned magic)
> > 	strbuf_addf(sb, ",prefix:%d)", prefixlen);
> > }
> >
> >+static void parse_pathspec_attr_match(struct pathspec_item *item, const char *value)
> >+{
> >+	struct string_list_item *si;
> >+	struct string_list list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> >+
> >+	if (item->attr_check)
> >+		die(_("Only one 'attr:' specification is allowed."));
> >+
> >+	if (!value || !*value)
> >+		die(_("attr spec must not be empty"));
> >+
> >+	string_list_split(&list, value, ' ', -1);
> >+	string_list_remove_empty_items(&list, 0);
> >+
> >+	item->attr_check = attr_check_alloc();
> >+	ALLOC_GROW(item->attr_match,
> >+		   list.nr,
> >+		   item->attr_match_alloc);
> 
> If item->attr_match always starts empty, then I think an xmalloc or
> xcalloc suffices (and we don't need item->attr_match_alloc anymore).
> 
> We should probably also check item->attr_match above - that is, `if
> (item->attr_check || item->attr_match)`.

Correct, I'll make these changes.

> 
> >+
> >+	for_each_string_list_item(si, &list) {
> >+		size_t attr_len;
> >+		char *attr_name;
> >+		const struct git_attr *a;
> >+
> >+		int j = item->attr_match_nr++;
> >+		const char *attr = si->string;
> >+		struct attr_match *am = &item->attr_match[j];
> >+
> >+		switch (*attr) {
> >+		case '!':
> >+			am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSPECIFIED;
> >+			attr++;
> >+			attr_len = strlen(attr);
> >+			break;
> >+		case '-':
> >+			am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSET;
> >+			attr++;
> >+			attr_len = strlen(attr);
> >+			break;
> >+		default:
> >+			attr_len = strcspn(attr, "=");
> >+			if (attr[attr_len] != '=')
> >+				am->match_mode = MATCH_SET;
> >+			else {
> >+				am->match_mode = MATCH_VALUE;
> >+				am->value = xstrdup(&attr[attr_len + 1]);
> >+				if (strchr(am->value, '\\'))
> >+					die(_("attr spec values must not contain backslashes"));
> >+			}
> >+			break;
> >+		}
> >+
> >+		attr_name = xmemdupz(attr, attr_len);
> >+		a = git_attr(attr_name);
> >+		if (!a)
> >+			die(_("invalid attribute name %s"), attr_name);
> >+
> >+		attr_check_append(item->attr_check, a);
> >+
> >+		free(attr_name);
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	if (item->attr_check->nr != item->attr_match_nr)
> >+		die("BUG: should have same number of entries");
> 
> I think such postcondition checks are usually not worth it, but
> others might differ.

yeah probably not, but its just an assert check for just in case so I'll
leave it in.

> 
> >+
> >+	string_list_clear(&list, 0);
> >+}
> >+
> > static inline int get_literal_global(void)
> > {
> > 	static int literal = -1;

-- 
Brandon Williams