Tom Grennan <tmgrennan@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
> +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.
- 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.
- 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?
- Is it a sane assumption that a caller that gives an exclude list will
want neither FNM_PATHNAME semantics nor match_path() semantics?
- Positive patterns are passed in "const char **match", and negative ones
are in "struct string_list *". Doesn't the inconsistency strike you as
strange?
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.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html