Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/4] grep: obey --textconv for the case rev:path

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/4] grep: obey --textconv for the case rev:path
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:31:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5113827A.40801@drmicha.warpmail.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130207095533.GA17110@sigio.peff.net>

Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 07.02.2013 10:55:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:47:55AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>>> I'd be OK if we had an exterior object_context that could be handled
>>> in the same way. But how do we tell setup_revisions that we are
>>> interested in seeing the object_context from each parsed item, where
>>> does the allocation come from (is it malloc'd by setup_revisions?), and
>>> who is responsible for freeing it when we pop pending objects in
>>> get_revisions and similar?
>>
>> Do we really need all of tree, path and mode in object_context (I mean
>> not just here, but other users), or only the path? I'd try and resurrect
>> the virtual path name objects then, they would be just like "item"
>> storage-wise.
> 
> We need at least mode, since that is how the mode parameter of
> object_array_entry gets set. I do not know off-hand who uses "tree". I
> suspect the intent was to do .gitattributes lookups inside that tree,
> but I do not think we actually do in-tree lookups currently.
> 
>>> I don't think it's as clear cut.
>>>
>>> I wonder, though...what we really care about here is just the pathname.
>>> But if it is a pending object that comes from a blob revision argument,
>>> won't it always be of the form "treeish:path"? Could we not even resolve
>>> the sha1 again, but instead just parse out the ":path" bit?
>>
>> Do we have that, and in what form (e.g. magic expanded etc.)?
> 
> Ah, I should have mentioned that. :) We should have the original rev
> name in the object_array_entry's name field, shouldn't we? It's just a
> matter of re-parsing it.
> 
>> Another thing I noted is that our path mangling at least for grep has
>> some issues:
>>
>> (cd t && git grep GET_SHA1_QUIETLY HEAD:../cache.h)
>> ../HEAD:../cache.h:#define GET_SHA1_QUIETLY        01
> 
> Yuck.

And even more yuck:

(cd t && git grep --full-name GET_SHA1_QUIETLY HEAD:../cache.h)
HEAD:../cache.h:#define GET_SHA1_QUIETLY        01

Someone does not expect a "rev:" to be in there, it seems ;)

Michael