On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:51 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Demonstrate how filter specs can be used when performing a revision walk
> of all object types. In this case, tree depth is used. Contributors who
> are following the revision walking tutorial will be encouraged to run
> the revision walk with and without the filter in order to compare the
> number of objects seen in each case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/builtin/walken.c b/builtin/walken.c
> @@ -143,6 +144,10 @@ static void walken_show_object(struct object *obj, const char *str, void *buf)
> static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev)
> {
> + struct list_objects_filter_options filter_options = {};
> +
> + printf("walken_object_walk beginning...\n");
Is this debugging code which you accidentally left in? Or is it meant
to use trace_printf()? Or something else? If it is a genuine message,
should it be localizable?
> @@ -157,7 +162,24 @@ static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev)
> blob_count = 0;
> tree_count = 0;
>
> - traverse_commit_list(rev, walken_show_commit, walken_show_object, NULL);
> + if (1) {
> + /* Unfiltered: */
The subject talks about adding a _filtered_ object walk (which is in
the 'else' arm), so should this be "if (0)" instead?
> + trace_printf(_("Unfiltered object walk.\n"));
> + traverse_commit_list(rev, walken_show_commit,
> + walken_show_object, NULL);
> + } else {
> + trace_printf(_("Filtered object walk with filterspec "
> + "'tree:1'.\n"));
> + /*
> + * We can parse a tree depth of 1 to demonstrate the kind of
> + * filtering that could occur during various operations (see
> + * `git help rev-list` and read the entry on `--filter`).
> + */
> + parse_list_objects_filter(&filter_options, "tree:1");
> +
> + traverse_commit_list_filtered(&filter_options, rev,
> + walken_show_commit, walken_show_object, NULL, NULL);
> + }
