[PATCH 6 of 8 v2] largefiles: only reset status fields where needed

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 11:46 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>>
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz at gmail.com>
>> # Date 1410906484 25200
>> #      Tue Sep 16 15:28:04 2014 -0700
>> # Node ID 06769b7fbba93d10fc2e7cf7967779eb838f61a6
>> # Parent  a6e0710be72f0df3e84ef410b9f34d86a9990bd4
>> largefiles: only reset status fields where needed
>>
>> Part of lfilesrepo.status() looks as follows. If 'listunknown' (etc.)
>> is false, the result from orig() should naturally not contain any
>> unknown files. There is therefore no need to clear these fields unless
>> the <condition> path was taken, so move the clearing into that block.
>>
>>    result = orig(node1, node2, m, listignored, listclean,
>>                  listunknown, listsubrepos)
>>    if <condition>:
>>        // modify 'result'
>>    if not listunknown:
>>        result[4] = []
>>    // similar for ignored and clean files
>>    return result;
>>
>> diff --git a/hgext/largefiles/reposetup.py b/hgext/largefiles/reposetup.py
>> --- a/hgext/largefiles/reposetup.py
>> +++ b/hgext/largefiles/reposetup.py
>> @@ -226,6 +226,12 @@
>>                       lfiles = (modified, added, removed, missing, [], [],
>> clean)
>>                       result = [sorted(list1 + list2)
>>                                 for (list1, list2) in zip(normals,
>> lfiles)]
>> +                    if not listunknown:
>> +                        result[4] = []
>> +                    if not listignored:
>> +                        result[5] = []
>
>
> It seemed to me like you agreed that at least these two assignments were
> redundant and misleading, but it seems like v2 of this patch is exactly like
> v1?

Yes, I agree. My patch didn't make it more or less redundant or
misleading, so I planned on leaving the decision between clearing and
asserting for later. But I see how this patch is pointless if the next
patch is just going to remove the clearing (and I do prefer that over
asserting), so I'll send a v3 replacing this patch with one that
removes the clearing instead.