Re: [PATCH/RFC] completion: complete refs in multiple steps
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:47:53 -0500
- From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] completion: complete refs in multiple steps
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 07:43:45AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > > In general I think it would be much better to rely more on 'git
> > > for-each-ref' to do the heavy lifting, extending it with new format
> > > specifiers/options as necessary.
> > FWIW, that was my first thought, too.
> I was more concerned whether it's a good idea to begin with. But it
> sounds like you two both think it's good otherwise would have
Heh. I do not have any real objection, but I don't think I'd really know
until I used it for a while. It may be a matter of preference, in which
case we might want $GIT_COMPLETION_REF_COMPONENTS to enable/disable it
(I don't have an opinion on what the default should be).
> > $ git for-each-ref --refname='%(refname)'
> > refs/heads/foo/bar
> > refs/heads/foo/baz
> > refs/heads/another/deep/one
> > we'd ideally complete "fo" to "foo/" and "ano" to "another/deep/one",
> > rather than making the user tab through each level.
> Ah ha, like github sometimes show nested submodule paths. Just one
> small modification, when doing "refs/heads/<tab>" I would just show
> not refs/heads/another/deep/one to save space. But when you do
> "refs/heads/a<tab>" then you get "refs/heads/another/deep/one"
Yeah. It's still only one entry either way (by definition), but it's
going to be much longer than all of the others. Again, I think I'd have
to see it in practice to decide how much I cared either way.
> > Doing that requires actually understanding that the refs are in a list,
> > and not formatting each one independently. So I kind of wonder if it
> > would be easier to simply have a completion mode in for-each-mode.
> That also allows more complicated logic. I think sometimes completion
> code gets it wrong (I think it's often the case with rev/path
> ambiguation, but maybe dwim stuff too). And we already have all this
> logic in C.