On 04-Jun-2021, at 13:51, Christian Couder [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:13 PM Atharva Raykar [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
+static void show_fetch_remotes(FILE *output, const char *sm_name, const char *git_dir_path)
+{
+ struct child_process cp_remote = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
+ struct strbuf sb_remote_out = STRBUF_INIT;
+
+ cp_remote.git_cmd = 1;
+ strvec_pushf(&cp_remote.env_array,
+ "GIT_DIR=%s", git_dir_path);
+ strvec_push(&cp_remote.env_array, "GIT_WORK_TREE=.");
+ strvec_pushl(&cp_remote.args, "remote", "-v", NULL);
+ if (!capture_command(&cp_remote, &sb_remote_out, 0)) {
+ char *line;
+ char *begin = sb_remote_out.buf;
+ char *end = sb_remote_out.buf + sb_remote_out.len;
+ while (begin != end && (line = get_next_line(begin, end))) {
+ char *name, *url, *tail;
+ name = parse_token(&begin, line);
+ url = parse_token(&begin, line);
+ tail = parse_token(&begin, line);
Sorry for not replying to your earlier message, but I think it's a bit
better to save a line with:
char *name = parse_token(&begin, line);
char *url = parse_token(&begin, line);
char *tail = parse_token(&begin, line);
Alright.
quoted
+ if (!memcmp(tail, "(fetch)", 7))
+ fprintf(output, " %s\t%s\n", name, url);
+ free(url);
+ free(name);
+ free(tail);
+ }
+ }
+
+ strbuf_release(&sb_remote_out);
+}
+
+static int add_submodule(const struct add_data *info)
+{
+ char *submod_gitdir_path;
+ /* perhaps the path already exists and is already a git repo, else clone it */
+ if (is_directory(info->sm_path)) {
+ printf("sm_path=%s\n", info->sm_path);
I don't see which shell code the above printf(...) instruction is
replacing. That's why I asked if it's some debugging leftover.
Oh, my bad. It is a leftover debugging statement. Please excuse
my temporary blindness to it (:
[...]
quoted
+ if (info->dissociate)
+ strvec_push(&clone_args, "--dissociate");
+ if (info->depth >= 0)
+ strvec_pushf(&clone_args, "--depth=%d", info->depth);
It's ok if there is a blank line here.
OK. Makes sense.
quoted
+ if (module_clone(clone_args.nr, clone_args.v, info->prefix)) {
+ strvec_clear(&clone_args);
+ return -1;
+ }
+ strvec_clear(&clone_args);
quoted
+static int add_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
+{
+ const char *branch = NULL, *sm_path = NULL;
+ const char *wt_prefix = NULL, *realrepo = NULL;
+ const char *reference = NULL, *sm_name = NULL;
+ int force = 0, quiet = 0, dissociate = 0, depth = -1, progress = 0;
+ struct add_data info = ADD_DATA_INIT;
Maybe: s/info/add_data/
'info' was the local convention for naming similar structures that
held the flag values (like summary_cb, module_cb, deinit_cb etc).
The exception to the above is 'struct submodule_update_clone', which
was named as 'suc'. It did not follow the *_cb naming convention,
presumably because it was not used as a parameter passed to any
*_cb() function.
Since 'struct add_data' is more similar to the latter (as it is not
used in any callback function) I guess it would be okay to name it
differently and more descriptively as 'add_data'?
Also it seems that in many cases it's a bit wasteful to use new
variables for option parsing and then to copy them into the add_data
struct when the field of the add_data struct could be used directly
for option parsing...
quoted
+ struct option options[] = {
+ OPT_STRING('b', "branch", &branch,
...for example, here maybe `&add_data.branch` could be used instead of
`&branch`...
I thought of this too, but decided to stick to the surrounding
convention, where a new variable is used and then assigned to the
struct.
I had a looked at the file again, and turns out...
OPT_STRING_LIST(0, "reference", &suc.references, N_("repo"),
N_("reference repository")),
OPT_BOOL(0, "dissociate", &suc.dissociate,
N_("use --reference only while cloning")),
OPT_STRING(0, "depth", &suc.depth, "<depth>",
N_("create a shallow clone truncated to the "
"specified number of revisions")),
... update_clone() is the exception again.
So there is precedent, and I'd rather follow what you suggested,
because that looks much better to me, and saves a lot of redundant
code.
quoted
+ N_("branch"),
+ N_("branch of repository to checkout on cloning")),
[...]
quoted
+ info.branch = branch;
...so that the above line would not be needed.
Yes, although I might still need to use an extra variable for
booleans, like 'progress' or 'dissociate', because of the need
to use !! to make it either 1 or 0. I am not too familiar with
why doing that would be important in this context, but since
this is the convention, I'll keep it intact.