Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> static void show_ce_entry(const char *tag, const struct cache_entry *ce)
> {
> + struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
> int len = max_prefix_len;
> + if (submodule_prefix)
> + strbuf_addstr(&name, submodule_prefix);
> + strbuf_addstr(&name, ce->name);
Continuing with the previous review, which concentrated on what
happens in the superproject; let's see what happens in the recursive
invocation in a submodule.
So a recursively spawned "ls-files --submodule-prefix=sub/" finds
a path in the index PATH and forms "sub/PATH" in "name". From here
on, where we used to match pathspec against ce->name, we would be
matching it against name->buf.
> + if (recurse_submodules && S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode) &&
> + submodule_path_match(&pathspec, name.buf, ps_matched)) {
> show_gitlink(ce);
This is primarily what happens in the superproject to decide if the
submodule is worth showing. When we are in a submodule, we can
descend into subsubmodule (if our ls-files run in the superproject
passed --recurse-submodule down) from here.
> + } else if (match_pathspec(&pathspec, name.buf, name.len,
> + len, ps_matched,
> + S_ISDIR(ce->ce_mode) ||
> + S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))) {
This is interesting bit to see what happens in the recursive
invocation. It uses the usual match_pathspec(), as we want to be
precise and correct, iow, we do not want to use DO_MATCH_SUBMODULE,
aka "it might be worth descending into submodule".
> + if (tag && *tag && show_valid_bit &&
> + (ce->ce_flags & CE_VALID)) {
> +...
> + }
> + write_eolinfo(ce, ce->name);
> + write_name(ce->name);
The prefixing is taken care of by write_name(), so it is correct to
use ce->name here.
> ...
> + strbuf_release(&name);
> }
OK, everything I saw so far for the recursive invocation here makes
sense.
Thanks.