Re: [GSoC][PATCH] submodule: port submodule subcommand 'add' from shell to C

[Shourya Shukla <shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com>]

On 02/09 02:05, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 18:34 +0530, Shourya Shukla wrote:
> > On 31/08 01:28, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> > 
> > This is what I have done finally:
> > ---
> > 	if (read_cache() < 0)
> > 		die(_("index file corrupt"));
> > 
> > 	if (!force) {
> > 		if (cache_file_exists(path, strlen(path), ignore_case) ||
> > 		    cache_dir_exists(path, strlen(path)))
> > 			die(_("'%s' already exists in the index"), path);
> > 	} else {
> > 		int cache_pos = cache_name_pos(path, strlen(path));
> > 		struct cache_entry *ce = the_index.cache[cache_pos];
> > 		if (cache_pos >= 0 && !S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
> > 			die(_("'%s' already exists in the index and is not a "
> > 			      "submodule"), path);
> > 	}
> > ---
> > 
> > I did not put the 'cache_pos >= 0' at the start since I thought that it
> > will unnecessarily increase an indentation level. Since we are using
> > 'cache_{file,dir}_exists' in the first check and 'cache_name_pos()' in
> > the second, the placement of check at another indentation level would be
> > unnecessary. What do you think about this?
> > 
> 
> Interestingly. 'cache_dir_exists' seems to work as expected only when
> the global ignore_case whose value seems to depend on core.ignorecase.
> So, we can't just rely on 'cache_dir_exists to identify a directory
> that has tracked contents. Apparently, the 'directory_exists_in_index'
> in 'dir.c' seems to have the code that we want here (which is also the
> only user of 'index_dir_exists'; the function for which
> 'cache_dir_exists' is a convenience wrapper.

I think both 'cache_{dir,file}_exists()' depend on 'core.ignorecase'
though I am not able to confirm this for 'cache_dir_exists()'. Where
exactly does this happen for the function? The function you mention
seems perfect to me, though, we will also have to make the enum
'exist_status' visible. Will that be fine? The final output will be:
---
	if (!force) {
		if (directory_exists_in_index(&the_index, path, strlen(path)))
			die(_("'%s' already exists in the index"), path);
	} else {
		int cache_pos = cache_name_pos(path, strlen(path));
		struct cache_entry *ce = the_index.cache[cache_pos];
		if (cache_pos >= 0 && !S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
			die(_("'%s' already exists in the index and is not a "
			      "submodule"), path);
	}
---


And obviously an extra commit changing the visibility of the function
and the enum.
 
> > > This is more close to what the shell version did but misses one case
> > > which might or might not be covered by the test suite[1]. The case when
> > > path is a directory that has tracked contents. In the shell version we
> > > would get:
> > > 
> > >    $ git submodule add ../git-crypt/ builtin
> > >    'builtin' already exists in the index
> > >    $ git submodule add --force ../git-crypt/ builtin
> > >    'builtin' already exists in the index and is not a submodule
> > > 
> > >    In the C version with the above snippet we get:
> > > 
> > >    $ git submodule add --force ../git-crypt/ builtin
> > >    fatal: 'builtin' does not have a commit checked out
> > >    $ git submodule add ../git-crypt/ builtin
> > >    fatal: 'builtin' does not have a commit checked out
> > > 
> > >    That's not appropriate and should be fixed. I believe we could do
> > >    something with `cache_dir_exists` to fix this.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    Footnote
> > >    ===
> > > 
> > >    [1]: If it's not covered already, it might be a good idea to add a test
> > >    for the above case.
> > 
> > Like Junio said, we do not care if it is a file or a directory of any
> > sorts, we will give the error if it already exists. Therefore, even if
> > it is an untracked or a tracked one, it should not matter to us. Hence
> > testing for it may not be necessary is what I feel. Why should we test
> > it?
> 
> I'm guessing you misunderstood. A few things:
> 
> - We only care about tracked contents for the case in hand.
> 
> - Identifying whether a given path corresponds to a directory
>   which has tracked contents is tricky. Neither 'cache_name_pos'
>   nor 'cache_file_exists' handle this. 'cache_dir_exists' is also
>   not very useful as mentioned above.
> 
> So, we do have to take care when handling that case as Junio pointed
> out.

I still do not understand this case. Let's say this was our
superproject:

.gitmodules .git/ a.txt dir1/

And we did:
    $ git submodule add <url> dir1/

Now, at this point, how does it matter if 'dir1/' has tracked content or
not right? A directory exists with that name and now we do not add the
SM to that path.