On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:48 PM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:13 PM Matheus Tavares
> <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > One of the main uses for a sparse checkout is to allow users to focus on
> > the subset of files in a repository in which they are interested. But
> > git-grep currently ignores the sparsity patterns and report all matches
> > found outside this subset, which kind of goes in the opposite direction.
> > Let's fix that, making it honor the sparsity boundaries for every
> > grepping case where this is relevant:
> >
> > - git grep in worktree
> > - git grep --cached
> > - git grep $REVISION
> >
> > For the worktree case, we will not grep paths that have the
> > SKIP_WORKTREE bit set, even if they are present for some reason (e.g.
> > manually created after `git sparse-checkout init`).
>
> This seems worded to rise alarm bells and make users suspect
> implementation difficulties or regrets rather than desired behavior.
> It would be much better to word this simply as something like:
>
> For the worktree and cached cases, we iterate over paths without
> the SKIP_WORKTREE bit set, and limit our searches to these paths.
>
> > But the next patch
> > will add an option to do so. (See 'Note' below.)
>
> Because this was in the same paragraph as the previous sentence, it
> made it sound like you were going to provide a special worktree-only
> option to search outside the SKIP_WORKTREE bits. Very confusing. I
> think I'd combine this sentence into the very first paragraph of the
> commit message and massage the wording a little. Perhaps something
> like: ...goes in the opposite direction. There are some usecases for
> ignoring the sparsity patterns and the next commit will add an option
> to obtain this behavior, but here we start by making grep honor the
> sparsity boundaries for every...
>
> > For `git grep $REVISION`, we will choose to honor the sparsity patterns
> > only when $REVISION is a commit-ish object. The reason is that, for a
> > tree, we don't know whether it represents the root of a repository or a
> > subtree. So we wouldn't be able to correctly match it against the
> > sparsity patterns. E.g. suppose we have a repository with these two
> > sparsity rules: "/*" and "!/a"; and the following structure:
> >
> > /
> > | - a (file)
> > | - d (dir)
> > | - a (file)
> >
> > If `git grep $REVISION` were to honor the sparsity patterns for every
> > object type, when grepping the /d tree, we would wrongly ignore the /d/a
> > file. This happens because we wouldn't know it resides in /d and
> > therefore it would wrongly match the pattern "!/a". Furthermore, for a
> > search in a blob object, we wouldn't even have a path to check the
> > patterns against. So, let's ignore the sparsity patterns when grepping
> > non-commit-ish objects.
>
> This doesn't actually make it clear how you handle $REVISION which is
> a commit object; you focus so much on when $REVISION is just a tree
> and contrasting that case that you omit the behavior for the case of
> interest. Also, $REVISION to my mind implies "commit"; if you want to
> imply that a commit or tree could be used, you'd use $TREE or
> $TREE_ISH or something else. I think it'd make sense to cover all
> three relevant cases into a single paragraph (thus combining with the
> previous paragraph), and then add a second paragraph about the $TREE
> case that streamlines the last two pargraphs above. So, perhaps we
> can your paragraphs from "For the worktree case, we will not grep
> paths..." all the way to "So, let's ignore the sparsity patterns when
> grepping non-commit-ish objects" (after first moving the comment about
> adding an option in the next commit to some other area of the commit
> message, as dicussed above) with something like the following:
>
> For the worktree and cached cases, we iterate over paths without
> the SKIP_WORKTREE bit set, and limit our searches to these paths. For
> the $REVISION case, we limit the paths we search to those that match
> the sparsity patterns. (We do not check the SKIP_WORKTREE bit for the
> $REVISION case, because $REVISION may contain paths that do not exist
> in HEAD and thus for which we have no SKIP_WORKTREE bit to consult.
> The sparsity patterns tell us how the SKIP_WORKTREE bit would be set
> if we were to check out $REVISION, so we consult those. Also, we
> don't use the sparsity paths with the worktree or cached cases, both
> because we have a bit we can check directly and more efficiently, and
> because unmerged entries from a merge or a rebase could cause more
> files to temporarily be present than the sparsity patterns would
> normally select.)
>
> Note that there is a special case here: `git grep $TREE`. In this
> case we cannot know whether $TREE corresponds to the root of the
> repository or some sub-tree, and thus there is no way for us to know
> which sparsity patterns, if any, apply. So the $TREE case will not
> use sparsity patterns or any SKIP_WORKTREE bits and will instead
> always search all files within the $TREE.
>
> >
> > Note: The behavior introduced in this patch is what some users have
> > reported[1] that they would like by default. But the old behavior is
> > still desirable for some use cases. Therefore, the next patch will add
> > an option to allow restoring it when needed.
>
> This paragraph duplicates information you already stated previously.
> It's much clearer than what you stated before, but if you just reword
> the previous comments and combine them into the first paragraph, then
> we can drop this final note.
All great suggestions! I will amend the commit message using your
proposed paragraphs. Thanks!
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > builtin/grep.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> > t/t7011-skip-worktree-reading.sh | 9 --
> > t/t7817-grep-sparse-checkout.sh | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[...]
> > +static struct pattern_list *get_sparsity_patterns(struct repository *repo)
> > +{
> > + struct pattern_list *patterns;
> > + char *sparse_file;
> > + int sparse_config, cone_config;
> > +
> > + if (repo_config_get_bool(repo, "core.sparsecheckout", &sparse_config) ||
> > + !sparse_config) {
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
>
> Is core_apply_sparse_checkout not initialized for some reason?
It should be already initialized, yes. But we cannot rely on that as
`repo` might be a submodule, and core_apply_sparse_checkout holds the
configuration's value for `the_repository`.
> > +static int in_sparse_checkout(struct strbuf *path, int prefix_len,
>
> This function name in_sparse_checkout() makes me think "Does the
> working tree represent a sparse checkout?" Perhaps we could rename it
> to path_matches_sparsity_patterns() ?
>
> Also, is there a reason we can't use dir.c's
> path_matches_pattern_list() here?
Oh, we do use path_matches_pattern_list() inside:
> > + *match = path_matches_pattern_list(path->buf, path->len,
> > + path->buf + prefix_len, &dtype,
> > + sparsity, istate);
> > + if (*match == UNDECIDED)
> > + *match = parent_match;
> How does this new function differ
> in behavior from that function?
The idea of in_sparse_checkout() is to implement a logic closer to
what we have in clear_ce_flags_1(). Here, it is effectively a wrapper
to path_matches_pattern_list() but with some extra logic to decide
whether grep should search in a given entry, based on its mode, the
match result against the sparsity patterns, and the result from the
parent dir.
> > diff --git a/t/t7817-grep-sparse-checkout.sh b/t/t7817-grep-sparse-checkout.sh
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 0000000000..ce080cf572
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/t/t7817-grep-sparse-checkout.sh
> > @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
> > +#!/bin/sh
> > +
> > +test_description='grep in sparse checkout
> > +
> > +This test creates a repo with the following structure:
> > +
> > +.
> > +|-- a
> > +|-- b
> > +|-- dir
> > +| `-- c
> > +|-- sub
> > +| |-- A
> > +| | `-- a
> > +| `-- B
> > +| `-- b
> > +`-- sub2
> > + `-- a
> > +
> > +Where . has non-cone mode sparsity patterns, sub is a submodule with cone mode
>
> Maybe "Where the outer repository has non-code mode..."? The use of
> '.' threw me for a bit.
Sure!
> > +test_done
> > --
> > 2.26.2
>
> Looks good. Do we want to add a testcase where a file is unmerged and
> present in the working copy despite not matching the sparsity patterns
> (i.e. to emulate being in the middle of a merge/rebase/cherry-pick)?
Sure, I can add that. But after a quick test here, it seems that the
unmerged path doesn't have the SKIP_WORKTREE bit set. Is this how it
should be?
