On 8/3/2022 10:40 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 8/3/2022 12:51 AM, Shaoxuan Yuan wrote:
>> Originally, rm a pathspec that is out-of-cone in a sparse-index
>> environment, Git dies with "pathspec '<x>' did not match any files",
>> mainly because it does not expand the index so nothing is matched.
>
> This paragraph appears to be assuming that we've stopped expanding the
> sparse index already. It might be worthwhile to rewrite this to say
> "Before integrating 'git rm' with the sparse index, we need to..." or
> something like that.
I have absolutely no idea why I wrote this paragraph this way, maybe
I was zoning out composing it. Will fix.
>> Remove the `ensure_full_index()` method so `git-rm` does not always
>> expand the index when the expansion is unnecessary, i.e. when
>> <pathspec> does not have any possibilities to match anything outside
>> of sparse-checkout definition.
>>
>> Expand the index when the <pathspec> needs an expanded index, i.e. the
>> <pathspec> contains wildcard that may need a full-index or the
>> <pathspec> is simply outside of sparse-checkout definition.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> builtin/rm.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/rm.c b/builtin/rm.c
>> index 84a935a16e..58ed924f0d 100644
>> --- a/builtin/rm.c
>> +++ b/builtin/rm.c
>> @@ -296,8 +296,9 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc, const char **argv, const
char *prefix)
>>
>> seen = xcalloc(pathspec.nr, 1);
>>
>> - /* TODO: audit for interaction with sparse-index. */
>> - ensure_full_index(&the_index);
>> + if (pathspec_needs_expanded_index(&the_index, &pathspec))
>> + ensure_full_index(&the_index);
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) {
>> const struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
>
> Looking back on the tests in patch 1, I don't see any tests that really
> emphasize the kinds of pathspecs that could not ever integrate with the
> sparse index. They are all of the form "folder1/*" or similar, making it
> be something that could be seen as a prefix match. Such a pattern _could_
> be integrated carefully with the sparse index.
>
> Instead, something like `git rm "*/a"` would be much harder to integrate
> with the sparse index. Could we add a test (in this patch) that checks
> that kind of case. That would also help justify this as its own patch and
> not squashed with patch 4.
Makes sense. Will fix.
--
Thanks,
Shaoxuan
