From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add core.pathspecGlob config option
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:06:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121220040602.GA15172@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121220035543.GA14965@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:55:43PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 07:51:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > > ++ if (limit_pathspec_to_literal())
> > > ++ item->nowildcard_len = item->len;
> > > ++ else {
> > > ++ item->nowildcard_len = simple_length(path);
> > > ++ if (item->nowildcard_len < item->len) {
> > > ++ pathspec->has_wildcard = 1;
> > > ++ if (path[item->nowildcard_len] == '*' &&
> > > ++ no_wildcard(path + item->nowildcard_len + 1))
> > > ++ item->flags |= PATHSPEC_ONESTAR;
> > > ++ }
> > > + }
> >
> > Hmph. I thought that returning the length without any "stop at glob
> > special" trick from simple_length() would be a simpler resolution.
> >
> > That is what is queued at the tip of 'pu', anyway.
>
> I don't think we can make a change in simple_length. It gets used not
> only for pathspecs, but also for parsing exclude patterns, which I do
> not think should be affected by this option.
Our test suite wouldn't catch such a misfeature, of course, because the
feature is not turned on by default. But I found it instructive to run
all of the tests with GIT_LITERAL_PATHSPECS on. There are failures, of
course, but by inspecting each failure you can see that it is an
intended effect of the patch (i.e., each tries to use a wildcard
pathspec, which no longer works).
When you suggested changing common_prefix, I ran such a test both with
and without the change[1] and confirmed that it did not change the set
of failure sites. I did not try it, but I suspect running such a test
with the tip of pu would reveal new failures in the .gitignore tests.
-Peff
[1] This is in addition to reading and reasoning about the code, of
course. I would not consider this a very robust form of testing,
though a test failure which cannot be easily explained would be a
good starting point for investigation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-20 4:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-19 20:34 [PATCH] add core.pathspecGlob config option Jeff King
2012-12-19 20:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-12-19 21:09 ` Jeff King
2012-12-19 21:50 ` [PATCH] add GIT_PATHSPEC_GLOB environment variable Jeff King
2012-12-19 22:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-12-19 22:12 ` Jeff King
2012-12-19 22:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-12-19 22:20 ` Jeff King
2012-12-19 22:37 ` Jeff King
2012-12-19 21:30 ` [PATCH] add core.pathspecGlob config option Junio C Hamano
2012-12-19 21:45 ` Jeff King
2012-12-20 1:28 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-12-20 3:13 ` Jeff King
2012-12-20 3:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-12-20 3:55 ` Jeff King
2012-12-20 4:06 ` Jeff King [this message]
2012-12-20 4:11 ` Jeff King
2012-12-20 5:26 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121220040602.GA15172@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).