The options --untracked and --cached are not compatible, but if they are
used together, grep just silently ignores --cached and searches the
working tree. Error out, instead, to avoid any potential confusion.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <redacted>
---
builtin/grep.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
@@ -1157,6 +1157,9 @@ int cmd_grep(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)if(!use_index&&(untracked||cached))die(_("--cached or --untracked cannot be used with --no-index"));+if(untracked&&cached)+die(_("--untracked cannot be used with --cached"));+if(!use_index||untracked){intuse_exclude=(opt_exclude<0)?use_index:!!opt_exclude;hit=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,use_exclude,use_index);
From: Taylor Blau <hidden> Date: 2021-02-08 21:49:28
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 04:43:28PM -0300, Matheus Tavares wrote:
quoted hunk
The options --untracked and --cached are not compatible, but if they are
used together, grep just silently ignores --cached and searches the
working tree. Error out, instead, to avoid any potential confusion.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <redacted>
---
builtin/grep.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
@@ -1157,6 +1157,9 @@ int cmd_grep(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)if(!use_index&&(untracked||cached))die(_("--cached or --untracked cannot be used with --no-index"));+if(untracked&&cached)+die(_("--untracked cannot be used with --cached"));+
Are these really incompatible? --untracked says that untracked files are
searched in addition to tracked ones in the working tree.
--cached says that the index is searched instead of tracked files. From
my reading, that seems to imply that the combination you're proposing
getting rid of would mean: "search the index,and untracked files".
That's a narrow use-case, but I couldn't think of a reason that it
shouldn't work (but it's been a while since I've looked or thought much
about the "git grep" code...).
Assuming that they are incompatible, though, a few thoughts:
Should this come before the "!use_index && (untracked || cached)" guard?
right now passing all three options first says you can't combine
--cached/--untracked with --no-index. Presumably the next invocation
would come without --no-index, only to come back that the remaining
options are incompatible.
I dunno. I'm thinking out loud, but it feels like this guard should come
before the one above it, not after.
Should this appear in 'git-grep(1)' too? I guess not, since looking for
"[iI]ncompatible" in that file turns up zero results.
Thanks,
Taylor
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:48 PM Taylor Blau [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 04:43:28PM -0300, Matheus Tavares wrote:
quoted
The options --untracked and --cached are not compatible, but if they are
used together, grep just silently ignores --cached and searches the
working tree. Error out, instead, to avoid any potential confusion.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <redacted>
---
builtin/grep.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
if (!use_index && (untracked || cached))
die(_("--cached or --untracked cannot be used with --no-index"));
+ if (untracked && cached)
+ die(_("--untracked cannot be used with --cached"));
+
Are these really incompatible? --untracked says that untracked files are
searched in addition to tracked ones in the working tree.
--cached says that the index is searched instead of tracked files. From
my reading, that seems to imply that the combination you're proposing
getting rid of would mean: "search the index,and untracked files".
Yeah, I agree that there is nothing conceptually wrong with the use case
"search the index, and untracked files". The problem is that git-grep is
currently not able to search both these places in the same execution.
In fact, I don't think it can combine working tree and index searches
in any way (besides with --assume-unchanged paths).
When --cached is used with --untracked, git-grep silently ignores
--cached and searches the working tree only:
$ echo 'cached A' >A
$ git add A
$ git commit -m A
$ echo 'modified A' >A
$ echo 'untracked' >B
$ git grep --cached --untracked .
A:modified A
B:untracked
Perhaps, instead of erroring out with this currently invalid
combination, should we make it valid by teaching git-grep how to search
the two places on a single run? I.e. something like:
@@ -1157,9 +1163,14 @@ int cmd_grep(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)if(!use_index&&(untracked||cached))die(_("--cached or --untracked cannot be used with --no-index"));-if(!use_index||untracked){+if(cached&&untracked){+hit=grep_cache(&opt,&pathspec,1);+hit|=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,!!opt_exclude,1,1);++}elseif(!use_index||untracked){intuse_exclude=(opt_exclude<0)?use_index:!!opt_exclude;-hit=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,use_exclude,use_index);+hit|=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,use_exclude,use_index,0);+}elseif(0<=opt_exclude){die(_("--[no-]exclude-standard cannot be used for tracked contents"));}elseif(!list.nr){
With this, the `git grep --cached --untracked .` search from the
previous example would produce the following output:
A:cached A
B:untracked
In this case, should we also add an 'untracked:' / 'cached:' prefix to
the filenames, like we do for revision searches (e.g. 'HEAD:A:cached A') ?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:27 PM Matheus Tavares
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:48 PM Taylor Blau [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 04:43:28PM -0300, Matheus Tavares wrote:
quoted
The options --untracked and --cached are not compatible, but if they are
used together, grep just silently ignores --cached and searches the
working tree. Error out, instead, to avoid any potential confusion.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <redacted>
---
builtin/grep.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
@@ -1157,6 +1157,9 @@ int cmd_grep(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)if(!use_index&&(untracked||cached))die(_("--cached or --untracked cannot be used with --no-index"));+if(untracked&&cached)+die(_("--untracked cannot be used with --cached"));+
Are these really incompatible? --untracked says that untracked files are
searched in addition to tracked ones in the working tree.
--cached says that the index is searched instead of tracked files. From
my reading, that seems to imply that the combination you're proposing
getting rid of would mean: "search the index,and untracked files".
Yeah, I agree that there is nothing conceptually wrong with the use case
"search the index, and untracked files". The problem is that git-grep is
currently not able to search both these places in the same execution.
In fact, I don't think it can combine working tree and index searches
in any way (besides with --assume-unchanged paths).
When --cached is used with --untracked, git-grep silently ignores
--cached and searches the working tree only:
$ echo 'cached A' >A
$ git add A
$ git commit -m A
$ echo 'modified A' >A
$ echo 'untracked' >B
$ git grep --cached --untracked .
A:modified A
B:untracked
Perhaps, instead of erroring out with this currently invalid
combination, should we make it valid by teaching git-grep how to search
the two places on a single run? I.e. something like:
@@ -1157,9 +1163,14 @@ int cmd_grep(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)if(!use_index&&(untracked||cached))die(_("--cached or --untracked cannot be used with --no-index"));-if(!use_index||untracked){+if(cached&&untracked){+hit=grep_cache(&opt,&pathspec,1);+hit|=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,!!opt_exclude,1,1);++}elseif(!use_index||untracked){intuse_exclude=(opt_exclude<0)?use_index:!!opt_exclude;-hit=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,use_exclude,use_index);+hit|=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,use_exclude,use_index,0);+}elseif(0<=opt_exclude){die(_("--[no-]exclude-standard cannot be used for tracked contents"));}elseif(!list.nr){
With this, the `git grep --cached --untracked .` search from the
previous example would produce the following output:
A:cached A
B:untracked
In this case, should we also add an 'untracked:' / 'cached:' prefix to
the filenames, like we do for revision searches (e.g. 'HEAD:A:cached A') ?
Ick, no. --untracked was a modifier on working tree searches. I
think doing this adds a really weird inconsistency for all the other
option combinations. I say mark --untracked and --cached as
incompatible like you did in your original patch, unless you're
willing to make grep generally be able to have options to search two
or more locations from any of (revisions of history, the cache, the
working tree), including being able to simultaneously search two
different revisions of history. Even then, I'd be tempted to say that
--untracked is only used in combination with a search of the working
tree.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matheus Tavares
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
The options --untracked and --cached are not compatible, but if they are
used together, grep just silently ignores --cached and searches the
working tree. Error out, instead, to avoid any potential confusion.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Tavares <redacted>
---
builtin/grep.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
@@ -1157,6 +1157,9 @@ int cmd_grep(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)if(!use_index&&(untracked||cached))die(_("--cached or --untracked cannot be used with --no-index"));+if(untracked&&cached)+die(_("--untracked cannot be used with --cached"));+if(!use_index||untracked){intuse_exclude=(opt_exclude<0)?use_index:!!opt_exclude;hit=grep_directory(&opt,&pathspec,use_exclude,use_index);--