Re: [PATCH v2] [GSoC] submodule--helper: introduce add-clone subcommand

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:13 PM Atharva Raykar <raykar.ath@gmail.com> wrote:

> +static void show_fetch_remotes(FILE *output, const char *sm_name, const char *git_dir_path)
> +{
> +       struct child_process cp_remote = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> +       struct strbuf sb_remote_out = STRBUF_INIT;
> +
> +       cp_remote.git_cmd = 1;
> +       strvec_pushf(&cp_remote.env_array,
> +                    "GIT_DIR=%s", git_dir_path);
> +       strvec_push(&cp_remote.env_array, "GIT_WORK_TREE=.");
> +       strvec_pushl(&cp_remote.args, "remote", "-v", NULL);
> +       if (!capture_command(&cp_remote, &sb_remote_out, 0)) {
> +               char *line;
> +               char *begin = sb_remote_out.buf;
> +               char *end = sb_remote_out.buf + sb_remote_out.len;
> +               while (begin != end && (line = get_next_line(begin, end))) {
> +                       char *name, *url, *tail;
> +                       name = parse_token(&begin, line);
> +                       url = parse_token(&begin, line);
> +                       tail = parse_token(&begin, line);

Sorry for not replying to your earlier message, but I think it's a bit
better to save a line with:

                       char *name = parse_token(&begin, line);
                       char *url = parse_token(&begin, line);
                       char *tail = parse_token(&begin, line);

> +                       if (!memcmp(tail, "(fetch)", 7))
> +                               fprintf(output, "  %s\t%s\n", name, url);
> +                       free(url);
> +                       free(name);
> +                       free(tail);
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       strbuf_release(&sb_remote_out);
> +}
> +
> +static int add_submodule(const struct add_data *info)
> +{
> +       char *submod_gitdir_path;
> +       /* perhaps the path already exists and is already a git repo, else clone it */
> +       if (is_directory(info->sm_path)) {
> +               printf("sm_path=%s\n", info->sm_path);

I don't see which shell code the above printf(...) instruction is
replacing. That's why I asked if it's some debugging leftover.

[...]

> +               if (info->dissociate)
> +                       strvec_push(&clone_args, "--dissociate");
> +               if (info->depth >= 0)
> +                       strvec_pushf(&clone_args, "--depth=%d", info->depth);

It's ok if there is a blank line here.

> +               if (module_clone(clone_args.nr, clone_args.v, info->prefix)) {
> +                       strvec_clear(&clone_args);
> +                       return -1;
> +               }
> +               strvec_clear(&clone_args);

> +static int add_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> +{
> +       const char *branch = NULL, *sm_path = NULL;
> +       const char *wt_prefix = NULL, *realrepo = NULL;
> +       const char *reference = NULL, *sm_name = NULL;
> +       int force = 0, quiet = 0, dissociate = 0, depth = -1, progress = 0;
> +       struct add_data info = ADD_DATA_INIT;

Maybe: s/info/add_data/

Also it seems that in many cases it's a bit wasteful to use new
variables for option parsing and then to copy them into the add_data
struct when the field of the add_data struct could be used directly
for option parsing...

> +       struct option options[] = {
> +               OPT_STRING('b', "branch", &branch,

...for example, here maybe `&add_data.branch` could be used instead of
`&branch`...

> +                          N_("branch"),
> +                          N_("branch of repository to checkout on cloning")),

[...]

> +       info.branch = branch;

...so that the above line would not be needed.