From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Grennan Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/5] refs: add match_pattern() Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:47:33 -0800 Message-ID: <20120222234733.GD2410@tgrennan-laptop> References: <1329874130-16818-1-git-send-email-tmgrennan@gmail.com> <1329874130-16818-2-git-send-email-tmgrennan@gmail.com> <7vobsrbcny.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, jasampler@gmail.com, pclouds@gmail.com To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 23 00:47:47 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S0LuT-0008B9-SH for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:47:46 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752823Ab2BVXrl (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:47:41 -0500 Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]:46761 "EHLO mail-qw0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752596Ab2BVXrk (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:47:40 -0500 Received: by qafk1 with SMTP id k1so810394qaf.19 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:47:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of tmgrennan@gmail.com designates 10.229.69.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.229.69.67; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of tmgrennan@gmail.com designates 10.229.69.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=tmgrennan@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=tmgrennan@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.229.69.67]) by 10.229.69.67 with SMTP id y3mr23380594qci.15.1329954459474 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:47:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=svfrxY503iDNzB+NEyUa3zffb6X+ZPXELDs/FZDgA0k=; b=i6s9md40eLVoIVuYAhNdDg6xyTxuaPKdY0yDjUAj2QumqmkUeKUMBNiFc0sBRh4UJ6 p5XhtcIrIyYsT8HkWrJ+A0+PZm8YUw8b/YeZY+3uLd0+xlk6rz5891VK51ZttDaVcvsI UJ/Do1VHTTp4G2IqwA8AU1kjwUBz8xbriI+yc= Received: by 10.229.69.67 with SMTP id y3mr19705304qci.15.1329954458731; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([129.192.185.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e2sm69636800qao.14.2012.02.22.15.47.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:47:37 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vobsrbcny.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:33:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >Tom Grennan writes: > >> +static int match_path(const char *name, const char *pattern, int nlen) >> +{ >> + int plen = strlen(pattern); >> + >> + return ((plen <= nlen) && >> + !strncmp(name, pattern, plen) && >> + (name[plen] == '\0' || >> + name[plen] == '/' || >> + pattern[plen-1] == '/')); >> +} > >This is a counterpart to the tail match found in ls-remote, so we would >want to call it with a name that makes it clear this is a leading path >match not just "path" match. Perhaps match_leading_path() or something. OK >> +int match_pattern(const char *name, const char **match, >> + struct string_list *exclude, int flags) >> +{ >> + int nlen = strlen(name); >> + >> + if (exclude) { >> + struct string_list_item *x; >> + for_each_string_list_item(x, exclude) { >> + if (!fnmatch(x->string, name, 0)) >> + return 0; >> + } >> + } >> + if (!match || !*match) >> + return 1; >> + for (; *match; match++) { >> + if (flags == FNM_PATHNAME) >> + if (match_path(name, *match, nlen)) >> + return 1; >> + if (!fnmatch(*match, name, flags)) >> + return 1; >> + } >> + return 0; >> +} > >As an API for a consolidated and generic function, the design needs a bit >more improving, I would think. > > - The name match_pattern() was OK for a static function inside a single > file, but it is way too vague for a global function. This is to match > refnames, so I suspect there should at least be a string "ref_" > somewhere in its name. OK > - You pass "flags" argument, so that later we _could_ enhance the > implementation to cover needs for new callers, but alas, it uses its > full bits to express only one "do we do FNM_PATHNAME or not?" bit of > information, so essentially "flags" does not give us any expandability. I agree. > - Is it a sane assumption that a caller that asks FNM_PATHNAME will > always want match_path() semantics, too? Aren't these two logically > independent? Yes, these should be ligically independent although the current use has combined them. > - Is it a sane assumption that a caller that gives an exclude list will > want neither FNM_PATHNAME semantics nor match_path() semantics? I'm not sure. I tried using FNM_PATHNAME with both exclusion and match patterns of git-for-each-ref but I couldn't get it to do something like this: git for-each-ref ... --exclude '*HEAD' refs/remotes/ I don't remember if this worked, git for-each-ref ... --exclude HEAD refs/remotes/ Now I see how an implicit TRAILING match would be useful, git for-each-ref ... --exclude /HEAD refs/remotes/ Where git-for-each-ref uses this flag: REF_MATCH_LEADING | REF_MATCH_TRAILING | REF_MATCH_FNM_PATH I'll experiment with this more. > - Positive patterns are passed in "const char **match", and negative ones > are in "struct string_list *". Doesn't the inconsistency strike you as > strange? Yes, I tried to minimize change but the conversion of argv's to string_list's won't add that much. >Perhaps like... > >#define REF_MATCH_LEADING 01 >#define REF_MATCH_TRAILING 02 >#define REF_MATCH_FNM_PATH 04 > >static int match_one(const char *name, size_t namelen, const char *pattern, > unsigned flags) >{ > if ((flags & REF_MATCH_LEADING) && > match_leading_path(name, pattern, namelen)) > return 1; > if ((flags & REF_MATCH_TRAILING) && > match_trailing_path(name, pattern, namelen)) > return 1; > if (!fnmatch(pattern, name, > (flags & REF_MATCH_FNM_PATH) ? FNM_PATHNAME : 0)) > return 1; > return 0; >} > >int ref_match_pattern(const char *name, > const char **pattern, const char **exclude, unsigned flags) >{ > size_t namelen = strlen(name); > if (exclude) { > while (*exclude) { > if (match_one(name, namelen, *exclude, flags)) > return 0; > exclude++; > } > } > if (!pattern || !*pattern) > return 1; > while (*pattern) { > if (match_one(name, namelen, *pattern, flags)) > return 1; > pattern++; > } > return 0; >} > >and then the caller could do something like > > ref_match_pattern("refs/heads/master", > ["maste?", NULL], > ["refs/heads/", NULL], > (REF_MATCH_FNM_PATH|REF_MATCH_LEADING)); > >Note that the above "ref_match_pattern()" gives the same "flags" for the >call to match_one() for elements in both positive and negative array and >it is very deliberate. See review comment to [3/5] for the reasoning. OK, I think that I understand, but please confirm, you'd expect no output in the above example, right? -- TomG