Re: [PATCH 2/9] builtin/cat-file: wire up an option to filter objects

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 04:20:55PM +0100, Toon Claes wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > In batch mode, git-cat-file(1) enumerates all objects and prints them
> > by iterating through both loose and packed objects. This works without
> > considering their reachability at all, and consequently most options to
> > filter objects as they exist in e.g. git-rev-list(1) are not applicable.
> > In some situations it may still be useful though to filter objects based
> > on properties that are inherent to them. This includes the object size
> > as well as its type.
> >
> > Such a filter already exists in git-rev-list(1) with the `--filter=`
> > command line option. While this option supports a couple of filters that
> > are not applicable to our usecase, some of them are quite a neat fit.
> >
> > Wire up the filter as an option for git-cat-file(1). This allows us to
> > reuse the same syntax as in git-rev-list(1) so that we don't have to
> > reinvent the wheel. For now, we die when any of the filter options has
> > been passed by the user, but they will be wired up in subsequent
> > commits.
> >
> > Note that we don't use the same `--filter=` name fo the option as we use
> > in git-rev-list(1). We already have `--filters`, and having both
> > `--filter=` and `--filters` would be quite confusing. Instead, the new
> > option is called `--objects-filter`.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree. I would rather have consistency in various
> commands. Because `--filters` doesn't accept an argument, so I would say
> having both `--filters` and `--filter=` is fine. I see in various places
> we already use `OPT_PARSE_LIST_OBJECTS_FILTER` which defines the option
> as `--filter=`, so it's pretty standard for several commands. I'd
> prefer git-cat-file(1) to follow that as well. But that's my 2 cents.

I'll wait for a third party to chime in as a tie breaker here :) I'm not
feeling overly strong about it, but still think that it's just too easy
to get wrong when those options are so extremely similarly named.

Patrick