On 03/09/2017 01:07 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt 
b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
index fc9320e59..5c32d1905 100644
--- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
+++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
@@ -384,6 +384,26 @@ full pathname may have special meaning:
 +
 Glob magic is incompatible with literal magic.

+attr;;
+After `attr:` comes a space separated list of "attribute
+requirements", all of which must be met in order for the
+path to be considered a match; this is in addition to the
+usual non-magic pathspec pattern matching.
++
+Each of the attribute requirements for the path takes one of
+these forms:
+
+- "`ATTR`" requires that the attribute `ATTR` must be set.

As a relative newcomer to attributes, I was confused by the fact that "set" and "set to a value" is different (and likewise "unset" and "unspecified"). Maybe it's worthwhile including a link to "gitattributes" to explain the different (exclusive) states that an attribute can be in.

+
+- "`-ATTR`" requires that the attribute `ATTR` must be unset.
+
+- "`ATTR=VALUE`" requires that the attribute `ATTR` must be
+  set to the string `VALUE`.
+
+- "`!ATTR`" requires that the attribute `ATTR` must be
+  unspecified.

It would read better to me if you omitted "must" in all 4 bullet points (and it is redundant anyway with "requires"), but I don't feel too strongly about this.

diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
index b961f00c8..583ed5208 100644
--- a/pathspec.c
+++ b/pathspec.c
@@ -87,6 +89,72 @@ static void prefix_magic(struct strbuf *sb, int prefixlen, 
unsigned magic)
        strbuf_addf(sb, ",prefix:%d)", prefixlen);
 }

+static void parse_pathspec_attr_match(struct pathspec_item *item, const char 
*value)
+{
+       struct string_list_item *si;
+       struct string_list list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
+
+       if (item->attr_check)
+               die(_("Only one 'attr:' specification is allowed."));
+
+       if (!value || !strlen(value))

You can write `!*value` instead of `!strlen(value)`.

+               die(_("attr spec must not be empty"));
+
+       string_list_split(&list, value, ' ', -1);

You could avoid some allocations by using the in-place variant (since value is a newly allocated string not used elsewhere) but it is probably not that important in this argument parsing case.

+       string_list_remove_empty_items(&list, 0);
+
+       item->attr_check = attr_check_alloc();
+       ALLOC_GROW(item->attr_match,
+                  item->attr_match_nr + list.nr,
+                  item->attr_match_alloc);

Is there a time when this function is called while item->attr_match_nr is not zero?

+
+       for_each_string_list_item(si, &list) {
+               size_t attr_len;
+               char *attr_name;
+               const struct git_attr *a;
+
+               int j = item->attr_match_nr++;
+               const char *attr = si->string;
+               struct attr_match *am = &item->attr_match[j];
+
+               switch (*attr) {
+               case '!':
+                       am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSPECIFIED;
+                       attr++;
+                       attr_len = strlen(attr);
+                       break;
+               case '-':
+                       am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSET;
+                       attr++;
+                       attr_len = strlen(attr);
+                       break;
+               default:
+                       attr_len = strcspn(attr, "=");
+                       if (attr[attr_len] != '=')
+                               am->match_mode = MATCH_SET;
+                       else {
+                               am->match_mode = MATCH_VALUE;
+                               am->value = xstrdup(&attr[attr_len + 1]);
+                               if (strchr(am->value, '\\'))
+                                       die(_("attr spec values must not contain 
backslashes"));
+                       }
+                       break;
+               }
+
+               attr_name = xmemdupz(attr, attr_len);
+               a = git_attr(attr_name);
+               if (!a)
+                       die(_("invalid attribute name %s"), attr_name);
+
+               attr_check_append(item->attr_check, a);
+
+               free(attr_name);
+       }
+
+       string_list_clear(&list, 0);
+       return;

Redundant return?

@@ -544,6 +628,10 @@ void parse_pathspec(struct pathspec *pathspec,
                if (item[i].nowildcard_len < item[i].len)
                        pathspec->has_wildcard = 1;
                pathspec->magic |= item[i].magic;
+
+               if (item[i].attr_check &&
+                   item[i].attr_check->nr != item[i].attr_match_nr)
+                       die("BUG: should have same number of entries");

I'm not sure if this check is giving us any benefit - I would expect this type of code before some other code that assumed that the numbers matched, and that will potentially segfault if not.

Reply via email to