胡哲宁 [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
OK. When show_stage is set, skipping_duplicates is automatically
turned off (and show_unmerged is automatically covered as it turns
show_stage on automatically). So this feature has really become
"are we showing only names, and if so, did we show an entry of the
same name before?".
Yeah,showing only names,so I yesterday ask such question :)
quoted
quoted
if (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf,
ce_stage(ce) ? tag_unmerged :
(ce_skip_worktree(ce) ? tag_skip_worktree :
tag_cached));
+ if (show_cached && skipping_duplicates)
+ last_shown_ce = ce;
The code that calls show_ce() belonging to a totally separate if()
statement makes my stomach hurt---how are we going to guarantee that
"last shown" really will keep track of what was shown last?
Shouldn't the above be more like this?
- if (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))
+ if (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce)) {
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf,
ce_stage(ce) ? tag_unmerged :
(ce_skip_worktree(ce) ? tag_skip_worktree :
tag_cached));
+ last_shown_ce = ce;
+ }
well,I am also thinking about this question :"last_shown_ce" is not true
last shown ce,but may be If "last_shown_ce" truly seen every last shown
ce ,We may need more cumbersome logic to make the program correct.
I have tried the processing method of your above code before, but found
that some errors may have occurred.
I think judicious use of "goto" without introducing the last_shown
would probably result in a much more maintainable code. It may look
somewhat like so:
for (i = 0; i < repo->index->cache_nr; i++) {
const struct cache_entry *ce = repo->index->cache[i];
struct stat st;
int stat_err;
construct_fullname(&fullname, repo, ce);
if ((dir->flags & DIR_SHOW_IGNORED) &&
!ce_excluded(dir, repo->index, fullname.buf, ce))
continue;
if (ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE)
continue;
if ((show_cached || show_stage) &&
(!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))) {
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf,
ce_stage(ce) ? tag_unmerged :
(ce_skip_worktree(ce) ? tag_skip_worktree :
tag_cached));
if (skip_duplicates)
goto skip_to_next_name;
}
if (!show_deleted && !show_modified)
continue;
if (ce_skip_worktree(ce))
continue;
stat_err = lstat(fullname.buf, &st);
if (stat_err && (errno != ENOENT && errno != ENOTDIR))
error_errno("cannot lstat '%s'", fullname.buf);
if (show_deleted) {
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf, tag_removed);
if (skip_duplicates)
goto skip_to_next_name;
}
if (show_modified &&
(stat_err || ie_modified(repo->index, ce, &st, 0)))
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf, tag_modified);
continue;
skip_to_next_name:
{
int j;
const struct cache_entry **cache = repo->index->cache;
for (j = i + 1; j < repo->index->cache_nr; j++)
if (strcmp(ce->ce_name, cache[j]->ce_name))
break;
i = j - 1; /* compensate for outer for loop */
}
}
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] 于2021年1月22日周五 上午4:45写道：
胡哲宁 [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
OK. When show_stage is set, skipping_duplicates is automatically
turned off (and show_unmerged is automatically covered as it turns
show_stage on automatically). So this feature has really become
"are we showing only names, and if so, did we show an entry of the
same name before?".
Yeah,showing only names,so I yesterday ask such question :)
quoted
quoted
if (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf,
ce_stage(ce) ? tag_unmerged :
(ce_skip_worktree(ce) ? tag_skip_worktree :
tag_cached));
+ if (show_cached && skipping_duplicates)
+ last_shown_ce = ce;
The code that calls show_ce() belonging to a totally separate if()
statement makes my stomach hurt---how are we going to guarantee that
"last shown" really will keep track of what was shown last?
Shouldn't the above be more like this?
- if (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))
+ if (!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce)) {
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf,
ce_stage(ce) ? tag_unmerged :
(ce_skip_worktree(ce) ? tag_skip_worktree :
tag_cached));
+ last_shown_ce = ce;
+ }
well,I am also thinking about this question :"last_shown_ce" is not true
last shown ce,but may be If "last_shown_ce" truly seen every last shown
ce ,We may need more cumbersome logic to make the program correct.
I have tried the processing method of your above code before, but found
that some errors may have occurred.
I think judicious use of "goto" without introducing the last_shown
would probably result in a much more maintainable code. It may look
somewhat like so:
for (i = 0; i < repo->index->cache_nr; i++) {
const struct cache_entry *ce = repo->index->cache[i];
struct stat st;
int stat_err;
construct_fullname(&fullname, repo, ce);
if ((dir->flags & DIR_SHOW_IGNORED) &&
!ce_excluded(dir, repo->index, fullname.buf, ce))
continue;
if (ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE)
continue;
if ((show_cached || show_stage) &&
(!show_unmerged || ce_stage(ce))) {
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf,
ce_stage(ce) ? tag_unmerged :
(ce_skip_worktree(ce) ? tag_skip_worktree :
tag_cached));
if (skip_duplicates)
goto skip_to_next_name;
}
if (!show_deleted && !show_modified)
continue;
if (ce_skip_worktree(ce))
continue;
stat_err = lstat(fullname.buf, &st);
if (stat_err && (errno != ENOENT && errno != ENOTDIR))
error_errno("cannot lstat '%s'", fullname.buf);
if (show_deleted) {
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf, tag_removed);
if (skip_duplicates)
goto skip_to_next_name;
}
if (show_modified &&
(stat_err || ie_modified(repo->index, ce, &st, 0)))
show_ce(repo, dir, ce, fullname.buf, tag_modified);
continue;
skip_to_next_name:
{
int j;
const struct cache_entry **cache = repo->index->cache;
for (j = i + 1; j < repo->index->cache_nr; j++)
if (strcmp(ce->ce_name, cache[j]->ce_name))
break;
i = j - 1; /* compensate for outer for loop */
}
}
I have to admit that this is indeed a good way to skip with "goto".
Thanks for your help.
And should I still use gitgitgadget PR on my origin branch "dedup"or
send patch on branch "zh/ls-files-deduplicate"?
Hi 胡哲宁,
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, 胡哲宁 wrote:
And should I still use gitgitgadget PR on my origin branch "dedup"or
send patch on branch "zh/ls-files-deduplicate"?
The way GitGitGadget is designed asks for contributors to adjust their
patch(es) via interactive rebase, implementing the suggestions and
addressing the concerns while doing so, then force-pushing, optionally
amending the first PR comment (i.e. the description) with a list of
those changes, and then submitting a new iteration via `/submit`.
Ciao,
Johannes
Hi Johannes Schindelin,
Thanks for prompt me how to choose, maybe I was a little confused
about the git workflow before, "zh/ls-files-deduplicate" this kind of
branch I don't need to operate,right?
Well, then I will modify my code on the original branch.
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] 于2021年1月23日周六 上午12:04写道：
Hi 胡哲宁,
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, 胡哲宁 wrote:
quoted
And should I still use gitgitgadget PR on my origin branch "dedup"or
send patch on branch "zh/ls-files-deduplicate"?
The way GitGitGadget is designed asks for contributors to adjust their
patch(es) via interactive rebase, implementing the suggestions and
addressing the concerns while doing so, then force-pushing, optionally
amending the first PR comment (i.e. the description) with a list of
those changes, and then submitting a new iteration via `/submit`.
Ciao,
Johannes