[PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

FUJIWARA Katsunori foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp
Fri Jan 27 04:03:08 EST 2017 

At Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:27:17 -0800,
Rodrigo Damazio wrote:
> 
> [1  <multipart/alternative (7bit)>]
> [1.1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>]
> All sounds very reasonable, and "filesin:" or "rootfilesin:" LGTM.

Is it OK for your solution that "rootfilesin:FOO" doesn't match
against "file FOO", even though your patch posted in this thread made
"files:FOO" do so ? or, is combining "rootfile:" and "rootfilesin"
acceptable for your solution ?


> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk <
> martinvonz at google.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:19 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori
> > <foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > > At Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:54:37 -0800,
> > > Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Rodrigo Damazio via Mercurial-devel
> > >> <mercurial-devel at mercurial-scm.org> wrote:
> > >> > Getting back to this after the end-of-year hiatus (yes, I know it
> > happens to
> > >> > be during another code freeze :) I seem to have good timing).
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Pierre-Yves David
> > >> > <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 12/21/2016 04:21 AM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     If I got these two pieces right, it looks like we could just
> > apply
> > >> >>>     the improvement to 'visitdir' to 'set:your/glob/*' and have your
> > >> >>>     usecase filled while not jumping into UI changes. Would that
> > work
> > >> >>>     for you ?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Not without a third set of changes, since set expansion doesn't use
> > >> >>> visitdir (or the matcher being built) at all - the dependency is
> > that
> > >> >>> building the matcher depends on expanding the set (and thus the set
> > >> >>> can't depend on the matcher).
> > >> >>> It would technically be doable for re:, but I'm wary of getting
> > into the
> > >> >>> business of parsing and special-casing regexes to assume what they
> > match
> > >> >>> or don't.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Rodrigo and I chatted directly about this a couple of days ago. Here
> > is a
> > >> >> quick summary of my new understanding of the situation.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Fileset
> > >> >> -------
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Fileset (behind "set:") can give the right result, but it is powered
> > by
> > >> >> not very modern code, it follow the old revset principle of "get
> > everything
> > >> >> and then run filters on that everything". That does not fit Rodrigo
> > needs at
> > >> >> all. It was easy to make 'set:' a bit smarter in the simple case but
> > then we
> > >> >> get into the issue that the matcher class is using 'set:' in a
> > strange,
> > >> >> non-lazy, way that does not use all the 'visitdir' feature
> > Rodrigo/Google
> > >> >> needs.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So in short, fileset needs a rework before being usable in a
> > demanding
> > >> >> context.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Current path restriction capability
> > >> >> -----------------------------------
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The 'Match' class already have logic to restrict the path visited
> > >> >> (implemented in the 'visitdir' method). To clarify, this logic as no
> > effect
> > >> >> on the returned match but is only an optimization for the directory
> > we
> > >> >> visit. It seems to only kicks in when treemanifest is used.
> > >> >> This logic already works with a couple of patterns type (all pattern
> > use
> > >> >> the same class). However, that logic currently do not support the
> > case were
> > >> >> one want to select some subdirectory and skips the rest of the
> > subtrees
> > >> >> under it.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > That is correct.
> > >> >
> > >> >> note: Rodrigo, you seems to have a good understanding of the logic.
> > Do you
> > >> >> think you could document the involved attributes (_includeroots,
> > >> >> _includedirs, _excluderoots, etc) That would help a lot the next
> > poor souls
> > >> >> looking at the code.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Sure. It took me a while to understand that "roots" means "recursive
> > >> > directories" and "dirs" means "non-recursive directories" in that
> > code - it
> > >> > all became much more clear after that. I'll be sure to add comments
> > in my
> > >> > patch and/or rename the attributes.
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Way forward
> > >> >> -----------
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That limitation in the matcher class optimization is the main
> > blocker for
> > >> >> Rodrigo/Google needs. The optimization is independent of the UI part
> > we
> > >> >> actually provides to user as all patterns use the same matcher class
> > and
> > >> >> some existing class could already benefit from this optimization.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Rodrigo seems to have a patch to update the matcher code to track and
> > >> >> optimize the "subdir-but-not-subtree" case. He has not submitted
> > this patch
> > >> >> yet. Submitting that patches seems the next step to me. It will get
> > the
> > >> >> matcher code in a state that can actually be used for the
> > >> >> narrowhg+treemanifest usecase.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Once that code is in, it seems easy to make sure various patterns
> > use it
> > >> >> basic, easily recognizable cases. We poked at updating the code to
> > have
> > >> >> basic regexp matching a subtree recognized as such and that was
> > quite easy.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Rodrigo, does that match your current understanding of the situation?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > It does.
> > >> > And just to clarify on the patches - I sent an initial patch, then
> > after
> > >> > comments changes it significantly, so those are two different changes:
> > >> >
> > >> > The first implements a "files:" matcher which matches all files
> > inside a
> > >> > directory, non-recursively. This has no wildcards, so special-casing
> > it in
> > >> > visitdir and any other places needed results in clean and simple code
> > ("if
> > >> > it's files:, don't recurse").
> > >> > The second implements "rootglob:" which allows any number of
> > wildcards at
> > >> > point in the path, and is part of Foozy's plan for the new set of
> > matchers.
> > >> > This adds some complexity in splitting dirs and roots (mentioned
> > above) by
> > >> > having to parse the wildcards, and then the visitdir change looks
> > less clean
> > >> > ("if it's a rootglob that has a single /* wildcard at the end, then
> > don't
> > >> > recurse" - other cases are possible but start to get more complex).
> > >> >
> > >> > For these reasons, I'd still prefer to get "files:" or similar in,
> > but I'm
> > >> > open for doing it either way. Please advise on the preferred way and
> > I'll
> > >> > send an updated patch (2 patches really - one for the matcher, one
> > for the
> > >> > visitdir optimization which makes it work with narrow).
> > >>
> > >> I'm fine with not doing rootglob:, but if I read foozy's proposal
> > >> right, the proposed files: will be what he would call rootfiles:. I
> > >> liked his proposal for a systematic naming, and if I got that right, I
> > >> think we should call it that from the beginning so we don't end up
> > >> with more aliases.
> > >
> > > Yeah, we should avoid confusion of naming !
> > >
> > >> I'd also like "rootfiles:foo" to *not* match the
> > >> file "foo", but only files in the directory "foo/". I mention that
> > >> because last I heard, he was unsure about that himself. Foozy, do you
> > >> agree?
> > >
> > > I don't have strong opinion against mode "XXX:", which matches against
> > > both "just this file" and "files directly under this directory"
> > >
> > > Therefore, I agree with adding new mode "XXX:", if it is needed (and
> > > Rodrigo/Google think so).
> > >
> > > But, name "files:" doesn't seem to suit for "XXX:" mode (at least, for
> > > me).
> > >
> > > Even if it matches against only "files directly under this directory",
> > > "files:" doesn't yet.
> > >
> > > Maybe, root cause of my bad feel is that "foo" of "files:foo" should
> > > be the directory in both cases, even though mode name "files:" has
> > > less "(under) this directory" flavor.
> > >
> > > If it is possible to combine 2 modes below for solving issues of
> > > Rodrigo/Google, I'm +1 for splitting "XXX:" into them, because naming
> > > "YYY:" should be easier than naming "XXX:".
> > >
> > >   - "file:" matching against "just this file"
> > >   - "YYY:" matching against "files directly under this directory"
> > >
> > > Are there any better (and short enough) names for "XXX:" or "YYY:"
> > > than "files:" ?
> > >
> > >   - "filesin:" (Files-In) for "YYY:" (<=> "files under" as "dir:") ?
> > >   - "fileorin:" (File-Or-(Files-)In) for "XXX:" ?
> > >
> > > Of course, I'm also OK with naming "XXX:" or "YYY:" as "files:", to go
> > > forward :-)
> >
> > I like "file:" and "filesin:" for those two cases. But we should add
> > the "root" prefix so we don't have to do that later, right?
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks
> > >> > Rodrigo
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Mercurial-devel mailing list
> > >> > Mercurial-devel at mercurial-scm.org
> > >> > https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > [FUJIWARA Katsunori]                             foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp
> >
> [1.2  <text/html; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> 
> [2 S/MIME Cryptographic Signature <application/pkcs7-signature (base64)>]
> 

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[FUJIWARA Katsunori]                             foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list