On 8/19/2021 4:07 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
...
>> if (matches_skip_worktree(pathspec, i, &skip_worktree_seen) ||
>> - (sparse_checkout_enabled &&
>> - !path_matches_pattern_list(path, strlen(path), NULL,
>> - &dtype, &pl, &the_index))) {
>> + (core_apply_sparse_checkout &&
>
> Do we need to test for `core_apply_sparse_checkout` here? Or does the `if
> (!istate->sparse_checkout_patterns) return MATCHED;` early return in
> `path_in_sparse_checkout()` suffice to catch this?
>
> The remainder of the patch looks good to me.
>
> Thank you,
> Dscho
>
>> + path_in_sparse_checkout(path, &the_index) == NOT_MATCHED)) {
Thank you for pointing out this. This is actually a stale change from an earlier
version where path_in_sparse_checkout returned an 'enum pattern_match_result'
but now casts down to an 'int', meaning '0' is not in the sparse-checkout and '1'
is that it _is_ in the sparse-checkout.
>> +int path_in_sparse_checkout(const char *path,
>> + struct index_state *istate)
>> +{
>> + const char *base;
>> + int dtype = DT_REG;
>> + init_sparse_checkout_patterns(istate);
>> +
>> + if (!istate->sparse_checkout_patterns)
>> + return MATCHED;
So here, if we do not have sparse-checkout patterns (for example, if
core_apply_sparse_checkout is false), then this returns MATCHED (== 1).
To be extra clear, this should just be 'return 1;'.
>> + base = strrchr(path, '/');
>> + return path_matches_pattern_list(path, strlen(path), base ? base + 1 : path,
>> + &dtype,
>> + istate->sparse_checkout_patterns,
>> + istate) > 0;
Here, we are selecting the portion of 'enum pattern_match_result' that
we care about (MATCHED and MATCHED_RECURSIVE). The UNMATCHED (0) and
UNDECIDED (-1) are the other possibilities, but file paths will not
return UNDECIDED, that is instead for directories in non-cone mode
patterns.
Thanks,
-Stolee
