On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:18:06PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:27:24AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:21:21AM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > > > Once we start passing either in, `match_pattern()` will have little to > > > do with a particular `struct ref_filter *` instance. To clarify this, > > > drop it from the argument list, and replace it with the only bit of the > > > `ref_filter` that we care about (`filter->ignore_case`). > > > > Makes sense, but... > > > > > @@ -2134,9 +2134,10 @@ static int match_pattern(const struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname) > > > * matches a pattern "refs/heads/" but not "refs/heads/m") or a > > > * wildcard (e.g. the same ref matches "refs/heads/m*", too). > > > */ > > > -static int match_name_as_path(const struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname) > > > +static int match_name_as_path(const struct ref_filter *filter, > > > + const char **pattern, > > > + const char *refname) > > > > ...wouldn't we then want to do the same for match_name_as_path()? > > Yes, definitely :-). I'm not sure how I missed this, since the patch > message even says that `match_name_as_path()` gets the same treatment as > the other function. > > But in any case, I obviously agree (and the diff below makes sense to > me). Applied. Ah, this is missing one more spot (that we wouldn't complain about during a non-DEVELOPER build). This needs to go on top, but I otherwise agree: --- 8< --- diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c index de85904b8d..845173a904 100644 --- a/ref-filter.c +++ b/ref-filter.c @@ -2176,7 +2176,8 @@ static int filter_exclude_match(struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname) if (!filter->exclude.nr) return 0; if (filter->match_as_path) - return match_name_as_path(filter, filter->exclude.v, refname); + return match_name_as_path(filter->exclude.v, refname, + filter->ignore_case); return match_pattern(filter->exclude.v, refname, filter->ignore_case); } --- >8 --- Thanks, Taylor
