On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Prathamesh Chavan <pc44800@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This aims to make git-submodule subcommand status a builtin. Here
> 'status' is ported to submodule--helper, and submodule--helper is
> called from git-submodule.sh.
>
> For the purpose of porting cmd_status, the code is split up such that
> one function obtains all the list of submodules, acting as the front-end
> of git-submodule status. This function later calls the second function
> for_each_submodule_list,it which basically loops through the list of
> submodules and calls function fn, which in this case is status_submodule.
> The third function, status submodule returns the status of submodule and
> also takes care of the recursive flag.
>
> The first function module_status parses the options present in argv,
> and then with the help of module_list_compute, generates the list of
> submodules present in the current working tree.
>
> The second function for_each_submodule_list traverses through the list,
> and calls function fn (which in the case of submodule subcommand status
> is status_submodule) is called for each entry.
>
> The third function status_submodule checks for the various conditions,
> and prints the status of the submodule accordingly. Also, this function
> takes care of the recursive flag by creating a separate child_process
> and running it inside the submodule. The function print_status handles the
> printing of submodule's status.
>
> Mentored-by: Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Mentored-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Prathamesh Chavan <pc44800@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> In this new version of patch, function print_status is introduced.
>
> The functions for_each_submodule_list and get_submodule_displaypath
> are found to be the same as those in the ported submodule subcommand
> foreach's patches. The reason for doing so is to keep both the patches
> independant and on separate branches.
Maybe keep it even in a separate patch, such that
the status series becomes:
patch 1: introduce for_each_submodule_list and get_submodule_displaypath
patch 2: port print_name_rev
patch 3: port status
whereas the foreach series (and other series later) could
re-use patch 1, and build on top of it.
For reviewing patches, it is fine to have the
get_submodule_displaypath is both series, though for applying
patches it for less complication/deduplication from the maintainer
I would think.
> +
> +static void print_status(struct status_cb *info, char state, const char *path,
> + char *sub_sha1, char *displaypath)
> +{
> + if (info->quiet)
> + return;
> +
> + printf("%c%s %s", state, sub_sha1, displaypath);
> +
> + if (state == ' ' || state == '+') {
> + struct argv_array name_rev_args = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
> +
> + argv_array_pushl(&name_rev_args, "print-name-rev",
> + path, sub_sha1, NULL);
> + print_name_rev(name_rev_args.argc, name_rev_args.argv,
> + info->prefix);
... with the suggestion given in the print_name_rev patch, this would
become a one liner. :)
The rest looks good to me :)