On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Jameson Miller <jameson.mille...@gmail.com> wrote:
Welcome to the Git mailing list. :) > 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] > This > 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? > Motivation: > 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 | > > Commands: > 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). > This changes exposes a --show-ignored-directory flag to the git status s/changes/change/ > 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? What happens to empty directories that match an ignore pattern? > @@ -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 behavior > +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 > +EOF I think our latest 'best style' is to include these heredocs into the test.