On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Rafael Silva <rafaeloliveira.cs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In c57b3367be (worktree: teach `list` to annotate locked worktree, > 2020-10-11) we taught `git worktree list` to annotate working tree that > is locked by appending "locked" text in order to signalize to the user > that a working tree is locked. During the review, there was some > discussion about additional annotations and information that `list` > command could provide to the user that has long been envisioned and > mentioned in [2], [3] and [4]. > > This patch series address some of these changes by teaching > `worktree list` to show "prunable" annotation, adding verbose mode and > extending the --porcelain format with prunable and locked annotation as > follow up from [1]. Additionally, it address one shortcoming for porcelain > format to escape any newline characters (LF and CRLF) for the lock reason > to prevent breaking format mentioned in [4] and [1] during the review > cycle. Thank you for working on this. I'm happy to see these long-envisioned enhancements finally taking shape. Before even reviewing the patches, I decided to apply them and play with the new features, and I'm very pleased to see that they behave exactly as I had envisioned all those years ago. Very nicely done. I'll review the patches when I finish responding to this cover letter. > The first moves the should_prune_worktree() machinery to the top-level > worktree.c exposing the function as general API, that will be reference > by should_prune_worktree() wrapper implemented on the second patch. The > original idea was to not only move should_prune_worktree() but also > refactor to accept "struct worktree" and load the information directly, > which can simplify the `prune` command by reusing get_worktrees(). > However this seems to also require refactoring get_worktrees() itself > to return "non-valid" working trees that can/should be pruned. This is > also mentioned in [5]. Having the wrapper function makes it easier to add > the prunable annotation without touching the get_worktrees() and the > other worktree sub commands. The refactoring can be addressed in a > future patch, if this turns out to be good idea. One possible approach > is to teach get_worktrees() to take additional flags that will tell > whether to return only valid or all worktrees in GIT_DIR/worktrees/ > directory and address its own possible shortcoming, if any. I haven't looked at the patches yet, so I can't respond to this right now. > The third patch changes worktree_lock_reason() to be more gentle for the > main working tree to simply returning NULL instead of aborting the > program via assert() macro. This allow us to simplify the code that > checks if the working tree is locked for default and porcelain format. > This changes is also mentioned in [6]. Sounds good. > The forth patch is the one that teaches `list` command to show prunable > annotation, for both default and porcelain format, and adds the verbose > option. These changes are also done for the "locked" annotation that was > not done on in [1]. Additionally, `list` learns to fail when both > --verbose and --porcelain format as used together. My knee-jerk response to disallowing --verbose and --porcelain together was that it seemed unnecessarily harsh, but upon reflection, I think it's the correct thing to do. After all, porcelain output, even though extensible and flexible, should be predictable, so it doesn't make sense for options such as --verbose to affect it. > The fifth patch adds worktree_escape_reason() that accepts a (char *) > text and returned the text with any LF or CRLF escaped. The caller is > responsible to freeing the escaped text. This is used by the locked > annotation in porcelain format. Currently, this is defined within > builtin/worktree.c as I was not sure whether libfying the function as > part of this series is a good idea. At this time it seems more sensible > to leave the code internally and libfying later once we are confident > about the implementation and whether it can be used in other part of the > code base but I'm open for suggestion. Perhaps I misunderstand, but I had envisioned employing one of the codebase's existing quoting/escaping functions rather than crafting a new one from scratch. However, I'll reserve judgment until I actually read the patch.
