Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> 于2022年6月23日周四 22:06写道： > > Hi ZheNing > > [...] > > +It is possible to print in a custom format by using the `--format` > > +option, which is able to interpolate different fields using > > +a `%(fieldname)` notation. For example, if you only care about the > > +"objectname" and "path" fields, you can execute with a specific > > +"--format" like > > + > > + git ls-files --format='%(objectname) %(path)' > > + > > +FIELD NAMES > > +----------- > > +Various values from structured fields can be used to interpolate > > +into the resulting output. For each outputting line, the following > > +names can be used: > > + > > +objectmode:: > > + The mode of the file which is in the index. > > +objectname:: > > + The name of the file which is in the index. > > +stage:: > > + The stage of the file which is in the index. > > +eol:: > > + The <eolinfo> and <eolattr> of files both in the > > + index and the work-tree. > > Looking at the test for this option I think it needs more work, why > should --format arbitrarily append a tab to the end of the output? - the > user should be able to specify a separator if they want one as part of > the format string. Also I'm not sure why there is so much whitespace in > the output. > Because I used old output format in write_eolinfo(), now I think it's wrong, I will separate it to three parts: %(eolinfo:index), %(eolinfo:worktree), %(eolattr). > If %(flags) is going to be useful then I think we need to think about > how they are printed and document that. At the moment they are printed > as a hexadecimal number which is fine for debugging but probably not > going to be useful for something like --format. I think printing > documented symbolic names with some kind of separator (a comma maybe) > between them is probably more useful > Agree. > > [...] > > +test_expect_success 'git ls-files --format eol' ' > > + printf "i/lf w/lf attr/ \t\n" >expect && > > + printf "i/lf w/lf attr/ \t\n" >>expect && > > + git ls-files --format="%(eol)" --eol >actual && > > I'm not sure why this is passing --eol as well as --format='%(eol)' - > shouldn't that combination of flags be an error? > Thank you for reminding, will be corrected. > Best Wishes > > Phillip ZheNing Hu
