| Message ID | 20190626235032.177551-12-emilyshaffer@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | example implementation of revwalk tutorial | expand |
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:51 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote: > Demonstrate how filter specs can be used when performing a revision walk > of all object types. In this case, tree depth is used. Contributors who > are following the revision walking tutorial will be encouraged to run > the revision walk with and without the filter in order to compare the > number of objects seen in each case. > > Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> > --- > diff --git a/builtin/walken.c b/builtin/walken.c > @@ -143,6 +144,10 @@ static void walken_show_object(struct object *obj, const char *str, void *buf) > static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev) > { > + struct list_objects_filter_options filter_options = {}; > + > + printf("walken_object_walk beginning...\n"); Is this debugging code which you accidentally left in? Or is it meant to use trace_printf()? Or something else? If it is a genuine message, should it be localizable? > @@ -157,7 +162,24 @@ static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev) > blob_count = 0; > tree_count = 0; > > - traverse_commit_list(rev, walken_show_commit, walken_show_object, NULL); > + if (1) { > + /* Unfiltered: */ The subject talks about adding a _filtered_ object walk (which is in the 'else' arm), so should this be "if (0)" instead? > + trace_printf(_("Unfiltered object walk.\n")); > + traverse_commit_list(rev, walken_show_commit, > + walken_show_object, NULL); > + } else { > + trace_printf(_("Filtered object walk with filterspec " > + "'tree:1'.\n")); > + /* > + * We can parse a tree depth of 1 to demonstrate the kind of > + * filtering that could occur during various operations (see > + * `git help rev-list` and read the entry on `--filter`). > + */ > + parse_list_objects_filter(&filter_options, "tree:1"); > + > + traverse_commit_list_filtered(&filter_options, rev, > + walken_show_commit, walken_show_object, NULL, NULL); > + }
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 01:42:45AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:51 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote: > > Demonstrate how filter specs can be used when performing a revision walk > > of all object types. In this case, tree depth is used. Contributors who > > are following the revision walking tutorial will be encouraged to run > > the revision walk with and without the filter in order to compare the > > number of objects seen in each case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> > > --- > > diff --git a/builtin/walken.c b/builtin/walken.c > > @@ -143,6 +144,10 @@ static void walken_show_object(struct object *obj, const char *str, void *buf) > > static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev) > > { > > + struct list_objects_filter_options filter_options = {}; > > + > > + printf("walken_object_walk beginning...\n"); > > Is this debugging code which you accidentally left in? Or is it meant > to use trace_printf()? Or something else? If it is a genuine message, > should it be localizable? The former. Removed. > > > @@ -157,7 +162,24 @@ static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev) > > blob_count = 0; > > tree_count = 0; > > > > - traverse_commit_list(rev, walken_show_commit, walken_show_object, NULL); > > + if (1) { > > + /* Unfiltered: */ > > The subject talks about adding a _filtered_ object walk (which is in > the 'else' arm), so should this be "if (0)" instead? Done.
diff --git a/builtin/walken.c b/builtin/walken.c index 42b23ba1ec..a744d042d8 100644 --- a/builtin/walken.c +++ b/builtin/walken.c @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ #include "pretty.h" #include "line-log.h" #include "list-objects.h" +#include "list-objects-filter-options.h" #include "grep.h" /* @@ -143,6 +144,10 @@ static void walken_show_object(struct object *obj, const char *str, void *buf) */ static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev) { + struct list_objects_filter_options filter_options = {}; + + printf("walken_object_walk beginning...\n"); + rev->tree_objects = 1; rev->blob_objects = 1; rev->tag_objects = 1; @@ -157,7 +162,24 @@ static void walken_object_walk(struct rev_info *rev) blob_count = 0; tree_count = 0; - traverse_commit_list(rev, walken_show_commit, walken_show_object, NULL); + if (1) { + /* Unfiltered: */ + trace_printf(_("Unfiltered object walk.\n")); + traverse_commit_list(rev, walken_show_commit, + walken_show_object, NULL); + } else { + trace_printf(_("Filtered object walk with filterspec " + "'tree:1'.\n")); + /* + * We can parse a tree depth of 1 to demonstrate the kind of + * filtering that could occur during various operations (see + * `git help rev-list` and read the entry on `--filter`). + */ + parse_list_objects_filter(&filter_options, "tree:1"); + + traverse_commit_list_filtered(&filter_options, rev, + walken_show_commit, walken_show_object, NULL, NULL); + } /* * This print statement is designed to be script-parseable. Script
Demonstrate how filter specs can be used when performing a revision walk of all object types. In this case, tree depth is used. Contributors who are following the revision walking tutorial will be encouraged to run the revision walk with and without the filter in order to compare the number of objects seen in each case. Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> Change-Id: I6d22ba153c1afbc780c261c47f1fa03ea478b5ed --- builtin/walken.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)