2018-01-19 20:14 GMT+03:00 Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Оля Тележная <olyatelezhnaya@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2018-01-18 1:39 GMT+03:00 Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:55:22AM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote: >>>> >>>>> > IOW, the progression I'd expect in a series like this is: >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. Teach ref-filter.c to support everything that cat-file can do. >>>>> > >>>>> > 2. Convert cat-file to use ref-filter.c. >>>>> >>>>> I agree, I even made this and it's working fine: >>>>> https://github.com/git/git/pull/450/commits/1b74f1047f07434dccb207534d1ad45a143e3f2b >>> >>> (Nit: it looks like the above link does not work any more, but it >>> seems that you are talking about the last patch on the catfile >>> branch.) >>> >>>>> But I decided not to add that to patch because I expand the >>>>> functionality of several commands (not only cat-file and >>>>> for-each-ref), and I need to support all new functionality in a proper >>>>> way, make these error messages, test everything and - the hardest one >>>>> - support many new commands for cat-file. As I understand, it is not >>>>> possible unless we finally move to ref-filter and print results also >>>>> there. Oh, and I also need to rewrite docs in that case. And I decided >>>>> to apply this in another patch. But, please, say your opinion, maybe >>>>> we could do that here in some way. >>>> >>>> Yeah, I agree that it will cause changes to other users of ref-filter, >>>> and you'd need to deal with documentation and tests there. But I think >>>> we're going to have to do those things eventually (since supporting >>>> those extra fields everywhere is part of the point of the project). And >>>> by doing them now, I think it can make the transition for cat-file a lot >>>> simpler, because we never have to puzzle over this intermediate state >>>> where only some of the atoms are valid for cat-file. >>> >>> I agree that you will have to deal with documentation and tests at one >>> point and that it could be a good idea to do that now. >>> >>> I wonder if it is possible to add atoms one by one into ref-filter and >>> to add tests and documentation at the same time, instead of merging >>> cat-file atoms with ref-filter atoms in one big step. >>> >>> When all the cat-file atoms have been added to ref-filter's >>> valid_atom, maybe you could add ref-filter's atoms to cat-file's >>> valid_cat_file_atom one by one and add tests and documentation at the >>> same time. >>> >>> And then when ref-filter's valid_atom and cat-file's >>> valid_cat_file_atom are identical you can remove cat-file's >>> valid_cat_file_atom and maybe after that rename "ref-filter" to >>> "format". >> >> I think it's important to finish migrating process at first. I mean, >> now we are preparing and collecting everything in ref-filter, but we >> make resulting string and print still in cat-file. And I am not sure, >> but maybe it will not be possible to start using new atoms in cat-file >> while some part of logic still differs. > > Ok, you can finish the migration process then. > >> And another thoughts here - we were thinking about creating format.h >> but decided not to move forward with it, and now we are suffering >> because of it. Can I create it right now or the history of commits >> would be too dirty because of it? > > It would also make it difficult to refactor your patch series if there > is a big move or renaming in the middle. > >> Also, do you mean just renaming of >> ref-filter? I was thinking that I need to put formatting-related logic >> to another file and leave all other stuff in ref-filter. > > Yeah, you can do both a move and a renaming. Thanks for a response! That thought is not clear enough for me. Do you want me to split ref-filter into 2 files (one is for formatting only called format and other one is for anything else still called ref-filter) - here is a second question by the way, do I need to create only format.h (and leave all realizations in ref-filter.c), or I also need to create format.c. Or, just to rename ref-filter into format and that's all. > >> Anyway, your suggested steps looks good, and I am planning to >> implement them later. > > Ok. > >> Let's discuss, what behavior we are waiting for >> when atom seems useless for the command. Die or ignore? > > We could alternatively just emit a warning, but it looks like there > are a lot of die() calls already in ref-filter.c, so I would suggest > die(). > >> And, which >> atoms are useless (as I understand, "rest" and "deltabase" from >> cat-file are useless for all ref-filter users, so the question is >> about - am I right in it, and about ref-filter atoms for cat-file). > > For now and I think until the migration process is finished, you could > just die() in case of any atom not already supported by the command. > >> I have never written any tests and docs for Git, I will try to explore >> by myself how to do that, but if you have any special links/materials >> about it - please send them to me :) > > I think that looking at the existing documentation and tests is > probably the best way to learn about it.
