Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +# Ignore_Untracked_Cache, abbreviated to 3 letters because then people can
>> +# compare commands side-by-side, e.g.
>> +# iuc status --porcelain >expect &&
>> +# git status --porcelain >actual &&
>> +# test_cmp expect actual
;-)
>> +iuc() {
Missing SP after "iuc".
>> + git ls-files -s >../current-index-entries
>> + git ls-files -t | grep ^S | sed -e s/^S.// >../current-sparse-entries
When you see yourself piping grep output to sed, think twice to see
if you can lose one of them. sed -ne 's/^S.//p' perhaps?
>> +
>> + GIT_INDEX_FILE=.git/tmp_index
>> + export GIT_INDEX_FILE
>> + git update-index --index-info <../current-index-entries
>> + git update-index --skip-worktree $(cat ../current-sparse-entries)
Are the dances with ls-files and update-index to prepare us for a
possible future in which we do not use .git/index as the index file,
or something? IOW, would
export GIT_INDEX_FILE=.git/tmp_index &&
cp .git/index "$GIT_INDEX_FILE &&
be insufficient?
>> +
>> + git -c core.untrackedCache=false "$@"
>> + ret=$?
>> +
>> + rm ../current-index-entries
>> + rm $GIT_INDEX_FILE
>> + unset GIT_INDEX_FILE
>> +
>> + return $ret
>> +}
>
> This is a clever way to get around the untracked cache deletion.
>
> Thanks for adding these extra comparisons! It really does help guarantee
> that we are doing the right thing in each case.
Yes, I think it is a great idea to see tested commands behave the
same way with or without the untracked cache.
Thanks.
