> Allow combining filters such that only objects accepted by all filters
> are shown. The motivation for this is to allow getting directory
> listings without also fetching blobs. This can be done by combining
> blob:none with tree:<depth>. There are massive repositories that have
> larger-than-expected trees - even if you include only a single commit.
First of all, patches 2 and 3 are straightforward and LGTM. On to patch
4...
[snip]
> The current usage requires passing the filter to rev-list in the
> following form:
>
> --filter=<FILTER1> --filter=<FILTER2> ...
>
> Such usage is currently an error, so giving it a meaning is backwards-
> compatible.
>
> The URL-encoding scheme is being introduced before the repeated flag
> logic, and the user-facing documentation for URL-encoding is being
> withheld until the repeated flag feature is implemented. The
> URL-encoding is in general not meant to be used directly by the user,
> and it is better to describe the URL-encoding feature in terms of the
> repeated flag.
As of this commit, we don't support such arguments passed to rev-list in
this way, so I would write these paragraphs as:
A combined filter supports any number of subfilters, and is written in
the following form:
combine:<filter 1>+<filter 2>+<filter 3>
Certain non-alphanumeric characters in each filter must be
URL-encoded.
For now, combined filters must be specified in this form. In a
subsequent commit, rev-list will support multiple --filter arguments
which will have the same effect as specifying one filter argument
starting with "combine:".
> Helped-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Helped-by: Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> list-objects-filter-options.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++-
> list-objects-filter-options.h | 17 ++-
> list-objects-filter.c | 159 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> t/t6112-rev-list-filters-objects.sh | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> url.c | 6 ++
> url.h | 8 ++
> 6 files changed, 441 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> @@ -28,22 +34,20 @@ static int gently_parse_list_objects_filter(
> struct strbuf *errbuf)
> {
> const char *v0;
>
> if (filter_options->choice) {
> strbuf_addstr(
> errbuf, _("multiple filter-specs cannot be combined"));
> return 1;
> }
>
> - filter_options->filter_spec = strdup(arg);
> -
This line has been removed from gently_parse_list_objects_filter()
because this function gains another caller that does not need it.
To compensate, this line has been added to both its existing callers.
> @@ -31,27 +32,37 @@ struct list_objects_filter_options {
> * the filtering algorithm to use.
> */
> enum list_objects_filter_choice choice;
>
> /*
> * Choice is LOFC_DISABLED because "--no-filter" was requested.
> */
> unsigned int no_filter : 1;
>
> /*
> - * Parsed values (fields) from within the filter-spec. These are
> - * choice-specific; not all values will be defined for any given
> - * choice.
> + * BEGIN choice-specific parsed values from within the filter-spec. Only
> + * some values will be defined for any given choice.
> */
> +
> struct object_id *sparse_oid_value;
> unsigned long blob_limit_value;
> unsigned long tree_exclude_depth;
> +
> + /* LOFC_COMBINE values */
> +
> + /* This array contains all the subfilters which this filter combines. */
> + size_t sub_nr, sub_alloc;
> + struct list_objects_filter_options *sub;
> +
> + /*
> + * END choice-specific parsed values.
> + */
> };
I still think it's cleaner to just have a "left subfilter" and "right
subfilter", but I don't feel strongly about it. In any case, this is an
internal detail and can always be changed in the future.
> + /*
> + * Optional. If this function is supplied and the filter needs to
> + * collect omits, then this function is called once before free_fn is
> + * called.
> + */
> + void (*finalize_omits_fn)(struct oidset *omits, void *filter_data);
This is needed because a combined filter's omits actually lie in the
subfilters. Resolving it this way means that callers must call
list_objects_filter__free() before using the omits set. Can you add
documentation to __init() (which is the first function to take in the
omits set) and __free() describing this?
(As stated in the test below, we cannot just share one omits set amongst
all the subfilters - see filter_trees_update_omits and the call site
that relies on its return value.)
Here comes the tricky part...
> +static int should_delegate(enum list_objects_filter_situation filter_situation,
> + struct object *obj,
> + struct subfilter *sub)
> +{
> + if (!sub->is_skipping_tree)
> + return 1;
> + if (filter_situation == LOFS_END_TREE &&
> + oideq(&obj->oid, &sub->skip_tree)) {
> + sub->is_skipping_tree = 0;
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
Optional: I think this should be called "test_and_set_skip_tree" or
something like that, made to return the inverse of its current return
value, and documented:
Returns the value of sub->is_skipping_tree at the moment of
invocation. If iteration is at the LOFS_END_TREE of the tree currently
being skipped, first clears sub->is_skipping_tree before returning.
> +static enum list_objects_filter_result process_subfilter(
> + struct repository *r,
> + enum list_objects_filter_situation filter_situation,
> + struct object *obj,
> + const char *pathname,
> + const char *filename,
> + struct subfilter *sub)
> +{
> + enum list_objects_filter_result result;
> +
> + /*
> + * Check should_delegate before oidset_contains so that
> + * is_skipping_tree gets unset even when the object is marked as seen.
> + * As of this writing, no filter uses LOFR_MARK_SEEN on trees that also
> + * uses LOFR_SKIP_TREE, so the ordering is only theoretically
> + * important. Be cautious if you change the order of the below checks
> + * and more filters have been added!
> + */
> + if (!should_delegate(filter_situation, obj, sub))
> + return LOFR_ZERO;
> + if (oidset_contains(&sub->seen, &obj->oid))
> + return LOFR_ZERO;
> +
> + result = list_objects_filter__filter_object(
> + r, filter_situation, obj, pathname, filename, sub->filter);
> +
> + if (result & LOFR_MARK_SEEN)
> + oidset_insert(&sub->seen, &obj->oid);
> +
> + if (result & LOFR_SKIP_TREE) {
> + sub->is_skipping_tree = 1;
> + sub->skip_tree = obj->oid;
> + }
> +
> + return result;
> +}
Looks good.
> +static enum list_objects_filter_result filter_combine(
> + struct repository *r,
> + enum list_objects_filter_situation filter_situation,
> + struct object *obj,
> + const char *pathname,
> + const char *filename,
> + struct oidset *omits,
> + void *filter_data)
> +{
> + struct combine_filter_data *d = filter_data;
> + enum list_objects_filter_result combined_result =
> + LOFR_DO_SHOW | LOFR_MARK_SEEN | LOFR_SKIP_TREE;
> + size_t sub;
> +
> + for (sub = 0; sub < d->nr; sub++) {
> + enum list_objects_filter_result sub_result = process_subfilter(
> + r, filter_situation, obj, pathname, filename,
> + &d->sub[sub]);
> + if (!(sub_result & LOFR_DO_SHOW))
> + combined_result &= ~LOFR_DO_SHOW;
> + if (!(sub_result & LOFR_MARK_SEEN))
> + combined_result &= ~LOFR_MARK_SEEN;
> + if (!d->sub[sub].is_skipping_tree)
> + combined_result &= ~LOFR_SKIP_TREE;
> + }
> +
> + return combined_result;
> +}
And also looks good. Might be confusing for tree skipping to be
communicated through is_skipping_tree instead of the return value, but
is_skipping_tree needs to be set anyway for other reasons, so that's
convenient.
