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.
