Subject: Re: [PATCH] ls-files: support --recurse-submodules --stage

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 19:51:47 +0100

On Mon, Feb 21 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> This test though will break, as you can see with:
>>
>>     GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_HASH=sha256 ./t3007-ls-files-recurse-submodules.sh
>>
>> So you'll need at least something like:
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t3007-ls-files-recurse-submodules.sh b/t/t3007-ls-files-recurse-submodules.sh
>> index 3d2da360d17..0fe69da8dcf 100755
>> --- a/t/t3007-ls-files-recurse-submodules.sh
>> +++ b/t/t3007-ls-files-recurse-submodules.sh
>> @@ -42,10 +42,10 @@ test_expect_success '--stage' '
>>  	echo brigddsv >submodule/c &&
>>  	git -C submodule commit -am "update c again" &&
>>  
>> -	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
>> -	100644 6da7 0	.gitmodules
>> -	100644 7898 0	a
>> -	100644 6178 0	b/b
>> +	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
>> +	100644 $(git rev-parse --short=4 HEAD:.gitmodules) 0	.gitmodules
>> +	100644 $(git rev-parse --short=4 HEAD:a) 0	a
>> +	100644 $(git rev-parse --short=4 HEAD:b/b) 0	b/b
>>  	100644 dead9 0	submodule/c
>>  	EOF
>>  
>> But then the problem is that one is dead9 and the other dead6, I was
>> just trying to find 4-char prefixes.
>>
>> But having indulged in all that, I'm now entirely confused about why any
>> of this needs to be tested here.
>>
>> You're adding --stage, which will give us --stage-y output, and it was
>> previously incompatible with --recurse-submodules. Having the two
>> combine is good!
>
> I think what this is trying to make sure is that it (1) enabled the
> combination and (2) uses the object store of the submodule when
> disambiguating names of the objects from the submodule, because the
> author suspects that the reason why these two options were made
> incompatible in the first place was because long time ago there
> wasn't a way to ask "here is an object name---please uniquify in the
> context of _that_ repository".  So it is understandable to prepare
> an object X in a submodule and another object Y in the superproject,
> such that the abbreviated name of X in the context of the submodule
> is different from the abbreviated name of X in the context of the
> superproject (i.e. if X were in the superproject's object store,
> because the object names of X and Y share the prefix, it may require
> longer prefix to disambiguate from Y), and make sure that the uniquify
> is indeed happening in the context of the submodule.
>
> So, you are only concentrating on (1) but forgetting why the author
> wants (2).

Indeed. That makes sense, but it would really help to e.g. have the test
description make that goal explicit.