Re: [PATCH 5/9] builtin/cat-file: support "object:type=" objects filter
From: Toon Claes <hidden>
Date: 2025-02-26 15:23:22
Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Implement support for the "object:type=" filter in git-cat-file(1), which causes us to omit all objects that don't match the provided object type. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <redacted> --- Documentation/git-cat-file.adoc | 3 +++ builtin/cat-file.c | 8 +++++++- t/t1006-cat-file.sh | 6 +++++- 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/Documentation/git-cat-file.adoc b/Documentation/git-cat-file.adoc index 8c474418b52..540d9dffdf9 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-cat-file.adoc +++ b/Documentation/git-cat-file.adoc@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ The form '--filter=blob:limit=<n>[kmg]' omits blobs of size at least n bytes or units. n may be zero. The suffixes k, m, and g can be used to name units in KiB, MiB, or GiB. For example, 'blob:limit=1k' is the same as 'blob:limit=1024'. ++ +The form '--filter=object:type=(tag|commit|tree|blob)' omits all objects +which are not of the requested type. --path=<path>:: For use with `--textconv` or `--filters`, to allow specifying an objectdiff --git a/builtin/cat-file.c b/builtin/cat-file.c index f57bf65cb03..b374c2bb104 100644 --- a/builtin/cat-file.c +++ b/builtin/cat-file.c@@ -474,7 +474,8 @@ static void batch_object_write(const char *obj_name, if (use_mailmap || opt->objects_filter.choice == LOFC_BLOB_NONE || - opt->objects_filter.choice == LOFC_BLOB_LIMIT) + opt->objects_filter.choice == LOFC_BLOB_LIMIT || + opt->objects_filter.choice == LOFC_OBJECT_TYPE) data->info.typep = &data->type; if (opt->objects_filter.choice == LOFC_BLOB_LIMIT) data->info.sizep = &data->size;@@ -505,6 +506,10 @@ static void batch_object_write(const char *obj_name, data->size >= opt->objects_filter.blob_limit_value) return; break; + case LOFC_OBJECT_TYPE: + if (data->type != opt->objects_filter.object_type) + return; + break; default: BUG("unsupported objects filter");
I see we don't support LOFC_COMBINE, so we won't be supporting repeating the --filter= option, is this intentional? Should we support that too? I feel it would make sense from the start, unless there are good reasons not to? -- Toon