On 08/07, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 14.09.2016 um 23:07 schrieb Thomas Gummerer:
> > When the chmod option was added to git add, it was hooked up to the diff
> > machinery, meaning that it only works when the version in the index
> > differs from the version on disk.
> >
> > As the option was supposed to mirror the chmod option in update-index,
> > which always changes the mode in the index, regardless of the status of
> > the file, make sure the option behaves the same way in git add.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sorry for replying almost a year late, hopefully you're still interested.
Thanks for still replying :)
> > ---
> > builtin/add.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > builtin/checkout.c | 2 +-
> > builtin/commit.c | 2 +-
> > cache.h | 10 +++++-----
> > read-cache.c | 14 ++++++--------
> > t/t3700-add.sh | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 6 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/add.c b/builtin/add.c
> > index b1dddb4..595a0b2 100644
> > --- a/builtin/add.c
> > +++ b/builtin/add.c
> > @@ -26,10 +26,25 @@ static int patch_interactive, add_interactive, edit_interactive;
> > static int take_worktree_changes;
> >
> > struct update_callback_data {
> > - int flags, force_mode;
> > + int flags;
> > int add_errors;
> > };
> >
> > +static void chmod_pathspec(struct pathspec *pathspec, int force_mode)
>
> "int force_mode" looks like a binary (or perhaps ternary) flag, but
> actually it is a character and can only have the values '-' or '+'.
> In builtin/update-index.c it's called "char flip" and we probably should
> define it like this here as well.
>
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) {
> > + struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
> > +
> > + if (pathspec && !ce_path_match(ce, pathspec, NULL))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (chmod_cache_entry(ce, force_mode) < 0)
> > + fprintf(stderr, "cannot chmod '%s'", ce->name);
>
> This error message is missing a newline. In builtin/update-index.c we
> also show the attempted change (-x or +x); perhaps we want to do that
> here as well.
Thanks for catching this, both this and the above are worth changing
imo. I see Ramsay already provided a patch for this in
https://public-inbox.org/git/aa004526-3e0d-66d4-287f-30abd29758fc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/.
Thanks Ramsay!
> Currently chmod_cache_entry() can only fail if ce is not a regular
> file or it's other parameter is neither '-' nor '+'. We rule out the
> latter already in the argument parsing code. The former can happen if
> we add a symlink, either explicitly or because it's in a directory
> we're specified.
>
> I wonder if we even need to report anything, or under which conditions.
> If you have a file named dir/file and a symlink named dir/symlink then
> the interesting cases are:
>
> git add --chmod=.. dir/symlink
> git add --chmod=.. dir/file dir/symlink
> git add --chmod=.. dir
>
> Warning about each case may be the most cautious thing to do, but
> documenting that --chmod has no effect on symlinks and keeping silent
> might be less annoying, especially in the last case. What do you
> think?
I'm not sure about this. While I do agree that it could be quite
annoying in the last case, it could potentially be a bit confusing to
not get any warning in the first case. I don't have a strong opinion
either way.
> > @@ -342,13 +354,8 @@ int cmd_add(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > if (!show_only && ignore_missing)
> > die(_("Option --ignore-missing can only be used together with --dry-run"));
> >
> > - if (!chmod_arg)
> > - force_mode = 0;
> > - else if (!strcmp(chmod_arg, "-x"))
> > - force_mode = 0666;
> > - else if (!strcmp(chmod_arg, "+x"))
> > - force_mode = 0777;
> > - else
> > + if (chmod_arg && ((chmod_arg[0] != '-' && chmod_arg[0] != '+') ||
> > + chmod_arg[1] != 'x' || chmod_arg[2]))
> > die(_("--chmod param '%s' must be either -x or +x"), chmod_arg);
>
> That's the argument parsing code mentioned above. The strcmp-based
> checks look nicer to me btw. How about this?
>
> if (chmod_arg && strcmp(chmod_arg, "-x") && strcmp(chmod_arg, "+x"))
>
> But that's just nitpicking.
I think this looks nicer indeed, thanks! But it's probably not worth
a patch for just this unless we decide to change to not warn as you
mentioned above, and can fix this at the same time?
> René
