Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] dir: teach status to show ignored directories

On 08/10/2017 04:03 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Jameson Miller
<jameson.miller81@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Welcome to the Git mailing list. :)

Thank you for the welcome and the review! I will include the
suggested code changes in the next patch version.

Teach Git to optionally show ignored directories when showing all
untracked files. The git status command exposes the options to report
ignored and/or untracked files. However, when reporting all untracked
files (--untracked-files=all), all individual ignored files are reported
as well. It is not currently possible to get the reporting behavior of
the --ignored flag, while also reporting all untracked files.
Trying to understand this based off the documentation for
--untracked=all and --ignored, I realize that the documentation
for --ignored seems to be lacking as I do not understand what the
--ignored behavior is in combination with --untracked=[all, normal, no]

The set of files listed by "--ignored" changes when different
values are given to "--untracked-files".  If would be nice to
be able to make the ignored output independent of the untracked
settings.  This patch attempts to do that while maintaining
backward compatibility with the existing behavior.

When "--ignored" is used by itself ("--untracked-files=normal"),
ignored directories (both directories that explicitly match a
directory ignore pattern -and- directories containing only ignored
files) are listed. Individual files within are *not* listed.

When "--ignored" is used with "--untracked-files=all", git always
lists the individual files within the ignored directories and DOES
NOT collapse the output to just the containing (explicitly or
implicitly ignored) directory.

This can cause a massive performance problem when there are
a lot of ignored files in a well-defined set of ignored directories.
For example, on Windows, Visual Studio creates a bin/ and
obj/ directory inside your project where it writes all .obj
files.  Normal usage is to explicitly ignore those 2 directory
names in your .gitignores (rather than or in addition to *.obj).
We just want to see the "bin/" and "obj/" paths
regardless of which "--untracked" flag is passed in.

We want to see the paths that explicitly match an ignore pattern.
This means that if a directory only contains ignored files, but the
directory itself is not explicitly ignored, then we want to see the
individual files. This is slightly different than the current behavior
of "--ignored".

I am open to suggestions on how to present the options to control
this behavior.

change exposes a flag to report all untracked files while not showing
individual files in ignored directories.
By the description up to here, it sounds as if you want to introduce
mode for --untracked, e.g. "normal-adjusted-for-ignored" (it's a bad
suggestion)? However the patch seems to add an orthogonal flag,
such that

   status --no-ignored --untracked=no --show-ignored-directory

would also be possible. What is a reasonable expectation for
the output of such?

The current patch does add another flag. This flag only has meaning if
the "--ignored" and "--untracked=all" flags are also specified. Another
option I had considered is to let the "--ignored" flag take an argument.
Then, we could express this new behavior through (for example) a
"--ignored=exact" flag to reflect the fact that this new option
returns paths that match the ignore pattern, and does not
collapse directories that contain only ignored files.

Our application (Visual Studio) needs all untracked files listed
individually, but does not need all ignored files listed individually.
For parsing output, I would strongly recommend --porcelain[=2],
but that is a tangent.

Reporting all ignored files can affect the time it takes for status
to run. For a representative repository, here are some measurements
showing a large perf improvement for this scenario:

| Command | Reported ignored entries | Time (s) |
| ------- | ------------------------ | -------- |
| 1       | 0                        | 1.3      |
| 2       | 1024                     | 4.2      |
| 3       | 174904                   | 7.5      |
| 4       | 1046                     | 1.6      |

  1) status
  2) status --ignored
  3) status --ignored --untracked-files=all
  4) status --ignored --untracked-files=all --show-ignored-directory
(2) is --untracked-files=normal I'd presume, such that this flag
can be understood as a tweak to "normal" based on the similar size
between 2 and 4? (The timing improvement from 2 to 4 is huge though).
(2) is --untracked-files=normal. Although the count of ignored
files similar between 2 and 4, I consider this flag more of a
tweak on 3, as we want the untracked files reported with
the "--untracked=all" flag. The counts between 2 and 4 are
similar in this case because most of the ignored files are
contained in ignored directories.

Our application calls status including the following flags:

--porcelain=v2 --ignored --untracked-files=all --ignore-submodules=none

This means we have bad performance compared to just "git status"
when there is a large number of files in ignored directories
With this new behavior, our application would move from case 3 to
case 4 for this repository.

You also point out the timing difference between case 2 and 4. I
think there is an optimization we can make when running "git
status --ignored" logic that will improve the the timing
here. Currently, the logic in dir.c is iterating over all files
contained in an ignored directory to see if it is empty or
not. This is not necessary - we should be able to stop after
finding any file. I plan to follow up on this in a different

This changes exposes a --show-ignored-directory flag to the git status

command. This flag is utilized when running git status with the
--ignored and --untracked-files options to not list ignored individual
ignored files contained in directories that match an ignore pattern.

Part of the perf improvement comes from the tweak to
read_directory_recursive to stop scanning the file system after it
encounters the first file. When a directory is ignored, all it needs to
determine is if the directory is empty or not. The logic currently keeps
scanning the file system until it finds an untracked file. However, as
the directory is ignored, all the contained contents are also marked
excluded. For ignored directories that contain a large number of files,
this can take some time.
I think it is possible to ignore a directory and still track files in it, what
are the implications of this flag on a tracked (and changed) file in an
ignored dir?
It is possible to have tracked files in an ignored directory. The
behavior with this patch is to show individual files in the
ignored directory. This patch includes a test covering this
scenario. I think this behavior is reasonable for this case - I
am interested if there are other opinions on this.

What happens to empty directories that match an ignore pattern?

The "git status" command would not show empty directories. From
the lower level implementation in dir.c, I think it *should*
depend on the DIR_HIDE_EMPTY_DIRECTORIES flag, but does not
currently. I will fix this with the next patch version.
@@ -1362,6 +1363,8 @@ int cmd_status(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
                   N_("ignore changes to submodules, optional when: all, dirty, untracked. (Default: all)"),
                   PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, NULL, (intptr_t)"all" },
                 OPT_COLUMN(0, "column", &s.colopts, N_("list untracked files in columns")),
+               OPT_BOOL(0, "show-ignored-directory", &show_ignored_directory,
Is it possible to directly read into  s.show_ignored_directory here?

+test_expect_success 'Verify behavior of status on folders with ignored files' '
+       test_when_finished "git clean -fdx" &&
+       git status --porcelain=v2 --ignored --untracked-files=all --show-ignored-directory >output &&
+       test_i18ncmp expect output
+# Test status bahavior on folder with tracked and ignored files

+cat >expect <<\EOF
+? expect
+? output
+! dir/tracked_ignored/ignored_1.ign
+! dir/tracked_ignored/ignored_2.ign
+! tracked_ignored/ignored_1.ign
+! tracked_ignored/ignored_2.ign
I think our latest 'best style' is to include these heredocs into the test.