Re: [PATCH 3/2] ls-files: only recurse on active submodules
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:30:19 -0700
- From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] ls-files: only recurse on active submodules
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Add in a check to see if a submodule is active before attempting to
>>>> recurse. This prevents 'ls-files' from trying to operate on a submodule
>>>> which may not exist in the working directory.
>>> What would currently happen on recursing into non-active submodules?
>>> Can we have a test for this?
>> We should be able to test for this. Is it possible that we can recurse
>> into a submodule as long as we have the clone in .git/modules/<name>
>> even if we don't have it checked out currently?
> Conceptually that should be possible, e.g.
> git ls-files --recurse-submodules <ancient ref>
> where the ancient ref contained submodules that are not present any more.
> In that case we would need to do
> struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
> struct child_process = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> struct submodule *sub = submodule_from_path( \
> <path as recorded in ancient tree>, <ancient ref>)
> strbuf_git_path(&sb, "modules/%s", sub->name);
> argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "git", "ls-files", "--recurse", ...);
> cp.dir = sb.buf;
This is probably the right flow to use then.