On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:10 AM Sangeeta Jain <sangunb09@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> This patch makes `git diff HEAD` consistent with `git describe --dirty`
> when a submodule contains untracked files by making
> `--ignore-submodules=untracked` the default.
> [...]
> Signed-off-by: Sangeeta Jain <sangunb09@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c
> @@ -4585,6 +4585,9 @@ void repo_diff_setup(struct repository *r, struct diff_options *options)
> + if(!options->flags.ignore_submodule_set)
> + options->flags.ignore_untracked_in_submodules = 1;
Style nit: insert a space between 'if' and the opening parenthesis
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> @@ -1678,6 +1679,8 @@ unsigned is_submodule_modified(const char *path, int ignore_untracked)
> if (ignore_untracked)
> strvec_push(&cp.args, "-uno");
> + else
> + strvec_push (&cp.args, "--ignore-submodules=none");
Style nit: use TAB for indentation, not spaces
Style nit: drop space between 'strvec_push' and open parenthesis
> diff --git a/t/t7064-wtstatus-pv2.sh b/t/t7064-wtstatus-pv2.sh
> @@ -503,6 +503,31 @@ test_expect_success 'untracked changes in added submodule (AM S..U)' '
> +test_expect_success 'untracked changes in added submodule (A. S...) (untracked ignored)' '
> + ( cd super_repo &&
> + ## create untracked file in the submodule.
> + ( cd sub1 &&
> + echo "xxxx" >file_in_sub
> + ) &&
I realize that you're following style of some, but not all tests, in
this file, but current the way we format subshells these days is:
(
cd foo &&
...
) &&
Whether you should adopt modern style or use existing style is a
judgment call. (If I was doing this, I might be inclined to follow
modern style rather than introducing even more of the unwanted old
style.)
But for really silly stuff like the 'echo', you don't need a subshell
at all, so it would be cleaner to write it like this without the
subshell:
echo "xxxx" >sub1/file_in_sub &&
(But again, I see that you're just following local style.)
> +test_expect_success 'staged and untracked changes in added submodule (AM S.M.) (untracked ignored)' '
> + ( cd super_repo &&
> + ( cd sub1 &&
> + ## stage new changes in tracked file.
> + git add file_in_sub &&
> + ## create new untracked file.
> + echo "yyyy" >>another_file_in_sub
> + ) &&
These days, `git` also understands -C, so this subshell likewise is
not necessary, and:
git -C sub1 add file_in_sub &&
echo "yyyy" >>sub1/another_file_in_sub
would be equivalent. (But perhaps that diverges too much from existing
style in the file? It's a judgment call.)
> diff --git a/t/t7506-status-submodule.sh b/t/t7506-status-submodule.sh
> @@ -94,36 +94,60 @@ test_expect_success 'status with added file in submodule (short)' '
> +test_expect_success 'status with untracked file in submodule (untracked ignored)' '
> + (cd sub && git reset --hard) &&
These one-liner subshells are super common in this particular script.
These days we'd write this as:
git -C sub reset --hard &&
Again, it's a judgment call whether to go with modern style or follow
existing style of the file.
Another option is to have a preparatory patch which first modernizes
the script, and then your new tests would follow modern style. But,
that may be outside of scope of your submission.
To summarize: The only really actionable review comments are the minor
style nits in the C code. The nits about style issues in the tests are
judgement calls, and could be handled (by someone) at a later date.
