Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] builtin/add: error out when passing untracked path with -u

[Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > When passing untracked path with -u option, it silently succeeds.
> > There is no error message and the exit code is zero. This is
> > inconsistent with other instances of git commands where the expected
> > argument is a known path. In those other instances, we error out when
> > the path is not known.
> >
> > Fix this by passing a character array to add_files_to_cache() to
> > collect the pathspec matching information and report the error and
> > exit if a pathspec does not match any cache entry. Also add a testcase
> > to cover this scenario.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  builtin/add.c         | 11 ++++++++++-
> >  t/t2200-add-update.sh | 10 ++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/add.c b/builtin/add.c
> > index dc4b42d0ad..88261b0f2b 100644
> > --- a/builtin/add.c
> > +++ b/builtin/add.c
> > @@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ int cmd_add(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >  	int add_new_files;
> >  	int require_pathspec;
> >  	char *seen = NULL;
> > +	char *ps_matched = NULL;
> >  	struct lock_file lock_file = LOCK_INIT;
> >  
> >  	git_config(add_config, NULL);
> > @@ -549,13 +550,20 @@ int cmd_add(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >  
> >  	begin_odb_transaction();
> >  
> > +	ps_matched = xcalloc(pathspec.nr, 1);
> >  	if (add_renormalize)
> >  		exit_status |= renormalize_tracked_files(&pathspec, flags);
> >  	else
> >  		exit_status |= add_files_to_cache(the_repository, prefix,
> > -						  &pathspec, NULL,
> > +						  &pathspec, ps_matched,
> >  						  include_sparse, flags);
> >  
> > +	if (take_worktree_changes && !add_renormalize &&
> > +	    report_path_error(ps_matched, &pathspec)) {
> > +		free(ps_matched);
> > +		exit(1);
> > +	}
> 
> Shouldn't we pay attention to ignore_add_errors?  The same comments
> about free'ing and exit code from the review on the previous step
> apply here, too.

Will update.

> Other than that, looking good.

Thanks.