On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:06:30PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > There are other similar trailing-slash matches in that function, but I'm > > not sure of all the cases in which they're used. I don't know if any of > > those would need similar treatment (sorry for being vague; I expect I'd > > need a few hours to dig into how the pathspec code actually works, and I > > don't have that today). > > If it'd only take you a few hours, then you're a lot faster than me. > It took me a while to start wrapping my head around it. OK, I was being overly optimistic. :) > The other trailing-slash matches in the function are all correct, > according to the testsuite. (I'm not sure I like the > DO_MATCH_DIRECTORY stuff, but it is encoded in tests and backward > compatibility is important.) In particular, changing the earlier code > to have the same offset trick would make it claim that e.g. either > "a/b" or "a/b/" as names match unconditionally against "a/b/c" as a > pathspec. We need it to be conditional: we only want that to be > considered a match when checking whether we want to recurse into the > directory for other matches, not when checking whether the directory > itself matches the pathspec. Thus, it should be behind a separate > flag, in a subsequent check, which is what this series does (namely > with DO_MATCH_LEADING_PATHSPEC). OK, that makes some sense to me. > To be more precise, here is how a matrix of pathnames and pathspecs > would be treated by match_pathspec_item(), where I am abbreviating > names like MATCH_RECURSIVELY_LEADING_PATHSPEC to LEADING): > > Pathspecs > | a/b | a/b/ | a/b/c > ------+-----------+------------+----------- > a/b | EXACT | RECURSIVE | LEADING[3] > Names a/b/ | EXACT[1] | EXACT | LEADING[2] > a/b/c | RECURSIVE | RECURSIVE | EXACT > > [1] Only if DO_MATCH_DIRECTORY is passed. Otherwise, > this is NOT a match at all. > [2] Only if DO_MATCH_LEADING_PATHSPEC is passed, > after applying this series. Otherwise, not a match > at all. > [3] Without the fix in this thread that you highlighted, > and assuming we apply patch 7, this would actually > mistakenly return RECURSIVE. > > > Now for a separate question: How much of the above would you like > added to the commit message...or even as a comment in the code to make > it clearer to other folks trying to make sense of it? That table seems quite illuminating to me. It's hard to pick out all the special-cases from the code, or what they're _supposed_ to be doing. I think it makes sense as a code comment. -Peff PS I'm going to be on a 3-week vacation starting tomorrow, so apologies in advance for ignoring any follow-ups.
