Hi Junio, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:40:58 -0700 > Vitor Antunes <vitor.hda@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Luke Diamand <luke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:27:11 +0100 >>> Vitor, one thing I wondered about with this part of the change: >>> >>> - if entry["depotFile"] == depotPath: >>> + if entry["depotFile"].find(depotPath) >= 0: >>> >>> Does this mean that if 'p4 where' produces multiple lines of output that >>> this will get confused, as it's just going to search for an instance of >>> depotPath. >> >> The reason why I introduced that was because in the test case I implemented (and >> which reflects a scenario I am confronted with in my workplace) the branches >> have a base directory that is removed in the client view mapping. >> As such, we will have a situation where depotPath is //depot/branch1/ while >> runninng "p4 where" will result in //depot/branch1/base/. To overcome this I >> used find() instead of a direct comparison. Now that I think about that, I could >> probably have used the simpler `if depotPath in entry["depotFile"]`... > > Hmph, is this find() under discussion the string.find() that finds a > substring? You are doing >=0 comparison here, but with your example > that entry["depotFile"] may have "base/" appended to what you > expect, the result of running string.find() must yield "0", i.e. no > extra prefix string, no? I kind of find it hard to believe that it > is OK to have any extra prefix is fine ... As usual, you're correct about your assumption. I should in fact be using "== 0" because what I really want is to guarantee that the path _starts_ with //depot/branch1. >>> The example in the Perforce man page for 'p4 where' would trigger this >>> for example: >>> >>> http://www.perforce.com/perforce/r14.2/manuals/cmdref/p4_where.html >>> >>> -//a/b/file.txt //client/a/b/file.txt //home/user/root/a/b/file.txt >>> //a/b/file.txt //client/b/file.txt /home/user/root/b/file.txt >> >> These are examples where a simple comparison as was implemented would work. > > ... so is this "find()" an attempt to catch prefix like "-"? Even > if it that were the reason why you do not limit the acceptable > return value from find() to zero, it feels a bit too loose to allow > anything if the only thing you want to allow is a single "-" prefix. Again, it was just a bad coding from my part. > Can you explain this a bit better? I cannot quite tell what is > going on from what was written in the log message. I've temporarily modified the script to print out the output of "p4 where", for future reference: [{'clientFile': '//client/branch1/...', 'code': 'stat', 'depotFile': '//depot/branch1/base/...', 'path': '/path/to/git/t/trash directory.t9801-git-p4-branch/cli/branch1/...'}, {'clientFile': '//client/branch1/sub_file1', 'code': 'stat', 'unmap': '', 'depotFile': '//depot/branch1/base/sub_file1', 'path': '/path/to/git/t/trash directory.t9801-git-p4-branch/cli/branch1/sub_file1'}, {'clientFile': '//client/branch1/dir/sub_file1', 'code': 'stat', 'unmap': '', 'depotFile': '//depot/branch1/base/dir/sub_file1', 'path': '/path/to/git/t/trash directory.t9801-git-p4-branch/cli/branch1/dir/sub_file1'}, {'clientFile': '//client/branch1/sub_file1', 'code': 'stat', 'depotFile': '//depot/branch1/base/dir/sub_file1', 'path': '/path/to/git/t/trash directory.t9801-git-p4-branch/cli/branch1/sub_file1'}] Note that this is from a modified test case. As you can see, there are no paths starting with "-", instead there a new attribute called "unmap" that implements that description. In the latest version of this update I'm searching for a path starting with "//depot/branch1" and ending in "/...". This is a much more robust solution, so I am really grateful for your review. >>> As an experiment, I hacked git-p4 to always use p4Where rather than >>> getClientRoot(), which I would have thought ought to work, but while >>> most of the tests passed, Pete's client-spec torture tests failed. >> >> That was exactly my first approach and got to the same conclusion. I would have >> investigated it further but since I haven't had much free time to invest in >> solving this problem I decided to implement an intermediary solution that would >> not introduce any regressions. Since I'm looking at this more carefully now, I'll also try to see if I am able to make p4 where work even when not using branch detection. > Thanks. No, thank _you_! -- 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