On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 09:31:23PM +0100, pp yy wrote:
> Maybe i missed something but i can't get relativepath when adding '-z'
>
> $ git --version
> git version 2.17.1
> $ git status -s test
> ?? test
> $ git status -s -z test
> ?? plugins/git/test
> $ git -c status.relativePaths=true status -s test
> ?? test
> $ git -c status.relativePaths=true status -s -z test
> ?? plugins/git/test
>
> Bug or did i missed something ?
I think it's a bug. At first I thought you were running up against the
implied porcelain output:
-z
Terminate entries with NUL, instead of LF. This implies the
--porcelain=v1 output format if no other format is given.
but you are explicitly saying "-s" (and running this in a terminal shows
that the result is colorized, which means we're triggering the short
format and not porcelain).
And indeed, the "-z" code path seems to ignore the prefix entirely.
Something like this would fix it:
diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
index cc6f94504d..3a0e479407 100644
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c
@@ -1837,9 +1837,13 @@ static void wt_shortstatus_status(struct string_list_item *it,
putchar(' ');
putchar(' ');
if (s->null_termination) {
- fprintf(stdout, "%s%c", it->string, 0);
+ struct strbuf scratch = STRBUF_INIT;
+ fprintf(stdout, "%s%c",
+ relative_path(it->string, s->prefix, &scratch), 0);
if (d->rename_source)
- fprintf(stdout, "%s%c", d->rename_source, 0);
+ fprintf(stdout, "%s%c",
+ relative_path(d->rename_source, s->prefix, &scratch), 0);
+ strbuf_release(&scratch);
} else {
struct strbuf onebuf = STRBUF_INIT;
const char *one;
Now I do think it's a little weird to use "-z" with "--short" in the
first place, since the whole point of "-z" is make something that can be
parsed. And the whole point of "--short" versus "--porcelain" is that
the latter is stable and predictable (so it doesn't respect config at
all).
But I guess I could imagine a use case where a script is taking in paths
from the "-z" and then showing them to the user without further
processing (and so it's convenient to get the relative path directly
rather than computing them itself). I do wonder if there are any other
surprises in "--short" that might be lurking, though (IIRC, we do not
even promise that the output will stay syntactically the same between
versions; it could change to something completely different, or add new
lines in future versions).
-Peff
