* nd/maint-fix-add-typo-detection:
Revert "excluded_1(): support exclude files in index"
unpack-trees: fix sparse checkout's "unable to match directories"
unpack-trees: move all skip-worktree checks back to unpack_trees()
dir.c: add free_excludes()
cache.h: realign and use (1 << x) form for CE_* constants
Matching index entries against an excludes file currently has two
problems.
First, there's no function to do it. Code paths (like sparse
checkout) that wanted to try it would iterate over index entries and
for each index entry pass that path to excluded_from_list(). But that
is not how excluded_from_list() works; one is supposed to feed in each
ancester of a path before a given path to find out if it was excluded
because of some parent or grandparent matching a
bigsubdirectory/
pattern despite the path not matching any .gitignore pattern directly.
Second, it's inefficient. The excludes mechanism is supposed to let
us block off vast swaths of the filesystem as uninteresting; separately
checking every index entry doesn't fit that model.
Introduce a new function to take care of both these problems. This
traverses the index in depth-first order (well, that's what order the
index is in) to mark un-excluded entries.
Maybe some day the in-core index format will be restructured to make
this sort of operation easier. Or maybe we will want to try some
binary search based thing. The interface is simple enough to allow
all those things. Example:
clear_ce_flags(the_index.cache, the_index.cache_nr,
CE_CANDIDATE, CE_CLEARME, exclude_list);
would clear the CE_CLEARME flag on all index entries with
CE_CANDIDATE flag and not matched by exclude_list.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Breaks in a test assertion's && chain can potentially hide
failures from earlier commands in the chain.
Commands intended to fail should be marked with !, test_must_fail, or
test_might_fail. The examples in this patch do not require that.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit c84de70 (excluded_1(): support exclude files in index -
2009-08-20) tries to work around the fact that there is no
directory/file information in index entries, therefore
EXC_FLAG_MUSTBEDIR match would fail.
Unfortunately the workaround is flawed. This fixes it.
Reported-by: Thomas Rinderknecht <thomasr@sailguy.org>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Sparse checkout narrows worktree down based on the skip-worktree bit
before and after $GIT_DIR/info/sparse-checkout application. If it does
not have that bit before but does after, a narrow is detected and the
file will be removed from worktree.
New files added by merge, however, does not have skip-worktree bit. If
those files appear to be outside checkout area, the same rule applies:
the file gets removed from worktree even though they don't exist in
worktree.
Just pretend they have skip-worktree before in that case, so the rule
is ignored.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To avoid touching the worktree outside a sparse checkout,
when the update flag is enabled unpack_trees() clears the
CE_UPDATE and CE_REMOVE flags on entries that do not match the
sparse pattern before actually committing any updates to the
index file or worktree.
The effect on the index was unintentional; sparse checkout was
never meant to prevent index updates outside the area checked
out. And the result is very confusing: for example, after a
failed merge, currently "git reset --hard" does not reset the
state completely but an additional "git reset --mixed" will.
So stop clearing the CE_REMOVE flag. Instead, maintain a
CE_WT_REMOVE flag to separately track whether a particular
file removal should apply to the worktree in addition to the
index or not.
The CE_WT_REMOVE flag is used already to mark files that
should be removed because of a narrowing checkout area. That
usage will still apply; do not clear the CE_WT_REMOVE flag
in that case (detectable because the CE_REMOVE flag is not
set).
This bug masked some other bugs illustrated by the test
suite, which will be addressed by later patches.
Reported-by: Frédéric Brière <fbriere@fbriere.net>
Fixes: http://bugs.debian.org/583699
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The purpose of this clearing is, as explained in comment, because
verify_*() may set those bits before apply_sparse_checkout() is
called. By that time, it's not clear whether an entry will stay in
checkout area or out. After $GIT_DIR/info/sparse-checkout is applied,
we know what entries will be in finally. It's time to clean unwanted
bits.
That works perfectly when checkout area remains unchanged. When
checkout area changes, apply_sparse_checkout() may set CE_UPDATE
or CE_WT_REMOVE to widen/narrow checkout area. Doing the clearing
after apply_sparse_checkout() may clear those widening/narrowing
bits unexpectedly.
So, only do that on entries that are not affected by checkout area
changes (i.e. skip-worktree bit does not change after
apply_sparse_checkout).
This code does not actually fix anything though, just
future-proof. The removed code and the narrow/widen code inside
apply_sparse_checkout are currently independent (narrow code never
sets CE_REMOVE, widen code sets CE_UPDATE, but ce_skip_worktree()
would be false).
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Tweak the rest of the script to more closely follow the test
style guide. Guarding setup commands with test_expect_success
makes it easy to see the scope in which some particular data is
used; removal of whitespace after >redirection operators is just
for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We should avoid duplicate test numbers, since things like
GIT_SKIP_TESTS consider something like t1009.5 to be
unambiguous.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
