do_match_pathspec() started life as match_pathspec_depth_1() and for
correctness was only supposed to be called from match_pathspec_depth().
match_pathspec_depth() was later renamed to match_pathspec(), so the
invariant we expect today is that do_match_pathspec() has no direct
callers outside of match_pathspec().
Unfortunately, this intention was lost with the renames of the two
functions, and additional calls to do_match_pathspec() were added in
commits 75a6315f74 ("ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules",
2016-10-07) and 89a1f4aaf7 ("dir: if our pathspec might match files
under a dir, recurse into it", 2019-09-17). Of course,
do_match_pathspec() had an important advantge over match_pathspec() --
match_pathspec() would hardcode flags to one of two values, and these
new callers needed to pass some other value for flags. Also, although
calling do_match_pathspec() directly was incorrect, there likely wasn't
any difference in the observable end output, because the bug just meant
that fill_diretory() would recurse into unneeded directories. Since
subsequent does-this-path-match checks on individual paths under the
directory would cause those extra paths to be filtered out, the only
difference from using the wrong function was unnecessary computation.
The second of those bad calls to do_match_pathspec() was involved -- via
either direct movement or via copying+editing -- into a number of later
refactors. See commits 777b420347 ("dir: synchronize
treat_leading_path() and read_directory_recursive()", 2019-12-19),
8d92fb2927 ("dir: replace exponential algorithm with a linear one",
2020-04-01), and 95c11ecc73 ("Fix error-prone fill_directory() API; make
it only return matches", 2020-04-01). The last of those introduced the
usage of do_match_pathspec() on an individual file, and thus resulted in
individual paths being returned that shouldn't be.
The problem with calling do_match_pathspec() instead of match_pathspec()
is that any negated patterns such as ':!unwanted_path` will be ignored.
Add a new match_pathspec_with_flags() function to fulfill the needs of
specifying special flags while still correctly checking negated
patterns, add a big comment above do_match_pathspec() to prevent others
from misusing it, and correct current callers of do_match_pathspec() to
instead use either match_pathspec() or match_pathspec_with_flags().
One final note is that DO_MATCH_LEADING_PATHSPEC needs special
consideration when working with DO_MATCH_EXCLUDE. The point of
DO_MATCH_LEADING_PATHSPEC is that if we have a pathspec like
*/Makefile
and we are checking a directory path like
src/module/component
that we want to consider it a match so that we recurse into the
directory because it _might_ have a file named Makefile somewhere below.
However, when we are using an exclusion pattern, i.e. we have a pathspec
like
:(exclude)*/Makefile
we do NOT want to say that a directory path like
src/module/component
is a (negative) match. While there *might* be a file named 'Makefile'
somewhere below that directory, there could also be other files and we
cannot pre-emptively rule all the files under that directory out; we
need to recurse and then check individual files. Adjust the
DO_MATCH_LEADING_PATHSPEC logic to only get activated for positive
pathspecs.
Reported-by: John Millikin <jmillikin@stripe.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
tree_entry_interesting() is used for matching pathspec on a tree. The
interesting thing about this function is that, because the tree
entries are known to be sorted, this function can return more than
just "yes, matched" and "no, not matched". It can also say "yes, this
entry is matched and so is the remaining entries in the tree".
This is where I made a mistake when matching exclude pathspec. For
exclude pathspec, we do matching twice, one with positive patterns and
one with negative ones, then a rule table is applied to determine the
final "include or exclude" result. Note that "matched" does not
necessarily mean include. For negative patterns, "matched" means
exclude.
This particular rule is too eager to include everything. Rule 8 says
that "if all entries are positively matched" and the current entry is
not negatively matched (i.e. not excluded), then all entries are
positively matched and therefore included. But this is not true. If
the _current_ entry is not negatively matched, it does not mean the
next one will not be and we cannot conclude right away that all
remaining entries are positively matched and can be included.
Rules 8 and 18 are now updated to be less eager. We conclude that the
current entry is positively matched and included. But we say nothing
about remaining entries. tree_entry_interesting() will be called again
for those entries where we will determine entries individually.
Reported-by: Christophe Bliard <christophe.bliard@trux.info>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The ability to exclude paths with a negative pathspec is not mentioned
in the man pages for git grep and other commands where it might be
useful.
Add an example and a pointer to the pathspec glossary entry in the man
page for git grep to help the user to discover this ability.
Add similar pointers from the git-add and git-status man pages.
Additionally,
- Add a test for the behaviour when multiple exclusions are present.
- Add a test for the ^ alias.
- Improve name of existing test.
- Improve grammar in glossary description of the exclude pathspec.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Manav Rathi <mnvrth@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Instead of erroring out and telling the user that they should add a
positive pattern that covers everything else, just _do_ that.
For commands where we honor the current cwd by default (ie grep, ls-files
etc), we make that default positive pathspec be the current working
directory. And for commands that default to the whole project (ie diff,
log, etc), the default positive pathspec is the whole project.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The Git CodingGuidelines prefer the $(...) construct for command
substitution instead of using the backquotes `...`.
The backquoted form is the traditional method for command
substitution, and is supported by POSIX. However, all but the
simplest uses become complicated quickly. In particular, embedded
command substitutions and/or the use of double quotes require
careful escaping with the backslash character.
The patch was generated by:
for _f in $(find . -name "*.sh")
do
perl -i -pe 'BEGIN{undef $/;} s/`(.+?)`/\$(\1)/smg' "${_f}"
done
and then carefully proof-read.
Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain,
but in a way that probably does not effect the outcome of
the test. Most of these are of the form:
some_cmd >actual
test_cmp expect actual
The main point of the test is to verify the output, and a
failure in some_cmd would probably be noticed by bogus
output. But it is good for the tests to also confirm that
"some_cmd" does not die unexpectedly after producing its
output.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
