Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] builtin:ls-files.c:add git ls-file --dedup option

[胡哲宁 <adlternative@gmail.com>]

You can see that the coding and documentation of GIT community are really very
standard, which may be one of the things I lack and need to improve ;)
Thanks for patiently correct my errors.

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> 于2021年1月14日周四 下午2:39写道：
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:36 AM ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> > builtin:ls-files.c:add git ls-file --dedup option
>
> This subject concisely explains the purpose of the patch. That's good.
> A more typical way to write it would be:
>
>     ls-files: add --dedup option
>
OK.I will correct it more specification.
> > This commit standardizes the code format.
>
> Fixing problems pointed out by reviewers is good. Normally, however,
> when you submit a new version of your patch or patch series, you
> should apply these fixes directly to the patch(es) which introduced
> the problems in the first place rather than adding one or more
> additional patches to fix problems introduced in earlier patches. To
> do this, you typically would use `git rebase -i` or `git commit
> --amend` to squash the fixes into the problematic patches. Thus, when
> you re-submit the patches, they will appear to be "perfect".
>
> For this particular two-patch series, patch [2/2] is doing two things:
> (1) fixing style problems from patch [1/2], and (2) adding
> documentation and tests which logically belong with the feature added
> by patch [1/2]. Taking the above advice into account, a better
> presentation when you re-submit this series would be to squash these
> two patches into a single patch.
>
I thought before this was gitgitgadget would sent duplicate patch
over and over again. It seems like I really should go straight ahead
and squash my commits , so I know what I should do.
> > Signed-off-by: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> > @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ OPTIONS
> > +--dedup::
> > +       Suppress duplicates entries when conflicts happen or
> > +       specify -d -m at the same time.
>
> For consistency with typesetting elsewhere in this file, use backticks
> around the command-line options. It also often is a good idea to spell
> the options using long form since it is typically easier to search for
> the long form of an option in documentation. So, perhaps the above can
> be written like this:
>
>     Suppress duplicate entries when `--deleted` and `--modified` are
>     combined.
>
> > diff --git a/builtin/ls-files.c b/builtin/ls-files.c
> > -       const struct cache_entry *last_stage=NULL;
> > +       const struct cache_entry *last_stage = NULL;
> > -                       if(show_cached && delete_dup){
> > +                       if (show_cached && delete_dup) {
> > -                                       last_stage=ce;
> > +                                       last_stage = ce;
> > -                       if(delete_dup){
> > +                       if (delete_dup) {
> > -                       if(delete_dup && show_deleted && show_modified && err)
> > +                       if (delete_dup && show_deleted && show_modified && err)
> > -                       else{
> > -                               if (show_deleted && err)/* you can't find it,so it's actually removed at all! */
> > +                       else {
> > +                               if (show_deleted && err)
>
> As mentioned above, these style fixes should be squashed into the
> first patch, rather than being done in a separate patch, so that
> reviewers see a nicely polished patch rather than a patch which
> requires later fixing up.
>
> > diff --git a/t/t3012-ls-files-dedup.sh b/t/t3012-ls-files-dedup.sh
> > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > +test_expect_success 'master branch setup and write expect1 expect2 and commit' '
>
> We usually give this test a simple title such as "setup" so that we
> don't have to worry about the title becoming outdated as people make
> changes to the test itself.
>
> > +       touch a.txt &&
> > +       touch b.txt &&
> > +       touch delete.txt &&
>
> On this project, we use `touch` when the timestamp of the empty files
> is important to the test. If the timestamp is not important, then we
> just use `>`, like this:
>
>     >a.txt &&
>     >b.txt &&
>     >delete.txt &&
>
OK,maybe because I always use touch to generate files.
> > +       cat <<-EOF >expect1 &&
> > +       M a.txt
> > +       H b.txt
> > +       H delete.txt
> > +       H expect1
> > +       H expect2
> > +       EOF
> > +       cat <<-EOF >expect2 &&
> > +       C a.txt
> > +       R delete.txt
> > +       EOF
>
> When no variables are being interpolated in the here-doc content, we
> use -\EOF to let readers know that the here-doc body is literal. So:
>
>     cat >expect1 <<-\EOF &&
>     ...
>     EOF
>
> > +       git add a.txt b.txt delete.txt expect1 expect2 &&
> > +       git commit -m master:1
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'main commit again' '
> > +       echo a>a.txt &&
> > +       echo b>b.txt &&
> > +       echo delete>delete.txt &&
> > +       git add a.txt b.txt delete.txt &&
> > +       git commit -m master:2
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'dev commit' '
> > +       git checkout HEAD~ &&
> > +       git switch -c dev &&
> > +       echo change>a.txt &&
> > +       git add a.txt &&
> > +       git commit -m dev:1
> > +'
>
> These two tests following the "setup" test also seem to be doing setup
> tasks rather than testing the new --dedup functionality. If this is
> the case, then it probably would make sense to combine all three tests
> into a single "setup" test.
>
> > +test_expect_success 'dev merge master' '
> > +       test_must_fail git merge master &&
> > +       git ls-files -t --dedup >actual1 &&
> > +       test_cmp expect1 actual1 &&
> > +       rm delete.txt &&
> > +       git ls-files -d -m -t --dedup >actual2 &&
> > +       test_cmp expect2 actual2
> > +'
>
> Do you foresee that people will add more tests to this file which will
> use the files and branches set up by the "setup" test(s)? If not, if
> those branches and files are only ever going to be used by this one
> test, then it probably would be better to combine all the above code
> into a single test.
No,the test file may just need only one.