From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
To: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, peff@peff.net,
Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] object-filter: common declarations for object filtering
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:05:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170927170533.65498396e008fa148a3fda90@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7774ff8d-3a53-860d-9343-292938d59d12@jeffhostetler.com>
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:09:42 -0400
Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/2017 6:39 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:30:11 +0000
> > Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Makefile | 1 +
> >> object-filter.c | 269 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> object-filter.h | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 443 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 object-filter.c
> >> create mode 100644 object-filter.h
> >
> > I think these and list-objects-filter-* are multiple levels of
> > indirection too many. Would a single file with a few implementations of
> > filter_object_fn be sufficient?
>
> I did that in my first draft and I found it confusing.
>
> Each filter has 3 parts (some filter-specific data structures,
> a filter callback routine, a driver to call the traverse code).
> I found it easier to reason about each filter in isolation.
> And it makes it easier to work on each independently and keep
> their inclusion in separate commits.
I looked at object-filter.{c,h} a bit more. It seems that these files:
1) define a struct that contains all the options that we would want
2) supplies a way to populate this struct from code that uses parse-options
3) supplies a way to populate this struct from code that calculates
options by hand
4) supplies a way to populate this struct from "protocol" ("<key>" or
"<key> <value>" strings)
And the next commit takes the struct that object-filter.{c,h} produces
and actually performs the traversal.
I think this can be significantly simplified, though. Would this work:
a) Define the object_filter_options struct, but make all fields
correspond to a single parameter each. Define
OBJECT_FILTER_OPTIONS_INIT to initialize everything to 0 except for
large_byte_limit to ULONG_MAX (so that we can detect if something
else is set to it).
b) Define one single OPT_PARSE_FILTER macro containing all the
parameters. We can use the non-callback macros here. That solves 2)
above.
c) Define a function that takes in (int *argc, char ***argv) that can
"massage" it to remove all filter-related arguments, storing them in
a object_filter_options struct. That solves 3) above. As discussed
in the API documentation, this means that argument lists of the form
"--unknown --known" (where "--unknown" takes an argument) are
processed differently, but then again, rev-list never supported them
anyway (it required "--unknown=<arg>").
d) Define a function that converts "<key>" into "--<key>" and "<key>
<value>" into "--<key>=<value>", and use the existing mechanism.
That solves 4) above.
This removes the need to maintain the lists of one-per-argument
functions, including the parse_filter_* and opt_parse_filter_* functions
declared in the header file. If we were to add a feature, we wouldn't
need to change anything in the caller, and wouldn't need to hand-edit
object_filter_hand_parse_arg() and object_filter_hand_parse_protocol().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-28 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-22 20:30 [PATCH 05/13] list-objects-filter-large: add large blob filter to list-objects Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 06/13] list-objects-filter-sparse: add sparse-checkout based filter Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 07/13] object-filter: common declarations for object filtering Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-26 22:39 ` Jonathan Tan
2017-09-27 17:09 ` Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-28 0:05 ` Jonathan Tan [this message]
2017-09-28 14:33 ` Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-29 19:47 ` Jonathan Tan
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 08/13] list-objects: add traverse_commit_list_filtered method Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 09/13] rev-list: add object filtering support Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-26 22:44 ` Jonathan Tan
2017-09-27 17:26 ` Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 10/13] rev-list: add filtering help text Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 11/13] t6112: rev-list object filtering test Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 12/13] pack-objects: add object filtering support Jeff Hostetler
2017-09-22 20:30 ` [PATCH 13/13] pack-objects: add filtering help text Jeff Hostetler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170927170533.65498396e008fa148a3fda90@google.com \
--to=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=git@jeffhostetler.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jeffhost@microsoft.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).