On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 12:53 PM ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My first week blog finished: > The web version is here: > https://adlternative.github.io/GSOC-Git-Blog-1/ Great! See some comments below, but you don't need to update your blog post for each comment. Some are just remarks that might help you. > ----- > > ## Week1: Git Adventure Begin > > Use Git to submit Git patches to the Git community. > Does it sound magical? I fell very lucky to be selected s/fell/feel/ > by the Git community this year and start my Git Adventure > in GSoC. > > I am no stranger to Git usage, and before the start of GSoC, > I have learned some Git source code content, but I only saw > the tip of the iceberg of Git source code, there are still many > things that I need to explore. > > ### What happened this week > - In [[GSoC] Hello > Git](https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOLTT8SHE-ok3D+oLNSWFi7KPU==VQnTMDmC4YxUyNBJKmBD8A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/), > Christian and JiangXin interacted with me. > - I checked Olga's patch at Christian's prompt and learned a way > to make `cat-file --batch` use `ref-filter` logic: Use `format_ref_array_item()` > in `batch_object_write()`, this is indeed a good entry point. But > before implementing this function, we must make `ref-filter` > support the function of printing the original data of the object > (as `cat-file --batch` does). I decided to reuse the atom In your blog post it looks like a space is missing after "object" as we see "object(as". > `%(content:raw)` in ref-filter to implement this function. The above could be understood as saying that `%(content:raw)` already exists, which is not really true. Maybe you could say something like "I decided to add the ":raw" option to the existing `%(content)` atom in ref-filter.c to implement this function." > ### The difficulties I met > In [[PATCH] [GSOC] ref-filter: add contents:raw > atom](https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.958.git.1621500593126.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/), > I submitted a patch, which support atom `%(content:raw)` s/support/supports/ or s/support/adds support for/ > for `ref-filter`. > > Unfortunately, this patch has a big problem: > I ignored the breakage on the test. This led me to Maybe: s/the breakage on the test/a test breakage/ > discover a bigger problem: > > If our references points to a blob or a tree, and these objects may > be binary files, The raw content of a tree indeed contains the binary contents of the hashes it references, while other objects like commit and tags contain hashes in the hexadecimal format. > this means that we cannot use functions related > to `strcmp()`,`strlen()` or `strbuf_addstr()`. The possible '\0' will > cause the output to be truncated. We have to think of a way to make > `ref-filter` can accept the output of these binary content. The strbuf API has functions to deal with binary content. > So I searched for all the codes in `ref-filter.c` that buffer might be > truncated by '\0' and use the appropriate method to replace them. > > Just like replacing `strcmp()` with `memcmp()`, We can use `strbuf_add()` > instead of `strbuf_addstr()`, > At the same time I also wrote the equivalent `*._quote_buf_with_size()` > to replace `*._quote_buf()`. Nice! > I just submit it to the mailing list right now: > [[GSOC][RFC] ref-filter: add contents:raw atom] > (https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.959.git.1621763612.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/) By the way a better title for your patch might be "[GSOC][RFC] ref-filter: add ':raw' option to %(contents) atom" > I don’t know if this is the right approach at the moment, let > us slowly wait for the suggestions of mentors and reviewers... ;-) Thanks, Christian.
