================
@@ -164,6 +164,40 @@ TEST_F(MatchFilePathTest, Path) {
EXPECT_FALSE(match("foo\\", R"(foo*\)"));
}
+TEST_F(MatchFilePathTest, DoubleAsterisk) {
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d.cpp", "**b**"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d.cpp", "**/b/**"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**d_*"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/d_*"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**d_**"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/d_**"));
+
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/b/c/**"));
+
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "a/**/b/c/d_e.cpp"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "a/**/c/d_e.cpp"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "a/**/b/**/d_e.cpp"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/b/**/d_e.cpp"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "a/**/**/b/**"));
+
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/d"));
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/b/d"));
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/b/d/**"));
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "**/b/c/"));
+
+ // Multiple consecutive asterisks are treated as **
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d.cpp", "***b****"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d.cpp", "****/b/***"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "***d_**"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "****/d_*"));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "***/b/c/*****"));
+
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "*****/d"));
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "***/b/d"));
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "*****/b/d/***"));
+ EXPECT_FALSE(match("a/b/c/d_e.cpp", "***/b/c"));
----------------
owenca wrote:
> > if we are doing this an saying "Its like .gitignore" should we support
>
> I am only indicating that the `**` glob pattern is implemented in .gitignore,
> and we follow the same rules they do for this specific pattern.
When I added .clang-format-ignore, I chose a POSIX glob-like model and
intentionally stayed clear of the .gitignore model, which is, IMO, confusing
and overcomplicated. I prefer to not add `**` now to partially match .gitignore
unless there's a good reason and strong demand for it. There's also a
possibility of regression as `**` is currently matched the same way as a single
`*`.
> I think the current implementation only considers one pattern in the file at
> a time, in isolation of all other lines in the .clang-format-ignore file.
Yes, the current behavior is to check the patterns in the .clang-format-ignore
file one pattern at a time until a match is found.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110560
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
