Re: [PATCH 2/2] mv: allow moving nested submodules

[Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> When directories are moved using `git mv` all files in the directory
> have been just moved, but no further action was taken on them. This
> was done by assigning the mode = WORKING_DIRECTORY to the files
> inside a moved directory.
>
> submodules however need to update their link to the git directory as
> well as updates to the .gitmodules file. By removing the condition of
> `mode != INDEX` (the remaining modes are BOTH and WORKING_DIRECTORY) for
> the required submodule actions, we perform these for submodules in a
> moved directory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>


The patch looks good to me. I've marked some comments that I thought
through while reviewing but it looks correct.

> ---
>  builtin/mv.c  | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  t/t7001-mv.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/mv.c b/builtin/mv.c
> index 74516f4..2deb95b 100644
> --- a/builtin/mv.c
> +++ b/builtin/mv.c
> @@ -253,23 +253,28 @@ int cmd_mv(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>                 int pos;
>                 if (show_only || verbose)
>                         printf(_("Renaming %s to %s\n"), src, dst);
> -               if (!show_only && mode != INDEX) {
> -                       if (rename(src, dst) < 0 && !ignore_errors)
> -                               die_errno(_("renaming '%s' failed"), src);
> -                       if (submodule_gitfile[i]) {
> -                               if ((submodule_gitfile[i] != SUBMODULE_WITH_GITDIR &&
> -                                   connect_work_tree_and_git_dir(dst, submodule_gitfile[i], &err)) ||
> -                                   update_path_in_gitmodules(src, dst, &err)) {
> -                                       if (err.len) {
> -                                               if (ignore_errors) {
> -                                                       warning("%s", err.buf);
> -                                                       continue;
> -                                               } else
> -                                                       die("%s", err.buf);
> -                                       }
> -                               } else
> -                                       gitmodules_modified = 1;
> -                       }
> +               if (show_only)
> +                       continue;

So here, we skip the item after displaying when we're in show only
mode. That seems correct.

> +               if (mode != INDEX &&
> +                   rename(src, dst) < 0) {
> +                       if (ignore_errors)
> +                               continue;
> +                       die_errno(_("renaming '%s' failed"), src);
> +               }

Then when the mode isn't INDEX, we attempt the rename.

> +
> +               if (submodule_gitfile[i]) {
> +                       if ((submodule_gitfile[i] != SUBMODULE_WITH_GITDIR &&
> +                           connect_work_tree_and_git_dir(dst, submodule_gitfile[i], &err)) ||
> +                           update_path_in_gitmodules(src, dst, &err)) {
> +                               if (err.len) {
> +                                       if (ignore_errors) {
> +                                               warning("%s", err.buf);
> +                                               continue;
> +                                       } else
> +                                               die("%s", err.buf);
> +                               }
> +                       } else
> +                               gitmodules_modified = 1;
>                 }

Finally for all modes, we perform the steps for submodules. That makes
sense to me.
>

This version results in a much larger diff, but I think the resulting
code is much easier to follow. The use of the continue allows us to
drop a layer of indentation making the remaining code a bit easier on
the eyes. The patch description doesn't at first glance match the code
change, since now it's a much larger chunk of moved code. However on
inspection, I don't think anything needs to change, as it's just the
conversion to if (show_only) { continue; }

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>

Thanks,
Jake