Matthew DeVore <matv...@comcast.net> writes:
> Simplify the filter execution data logic and structs by putting all
> execution data for all filter types in a single struct. This results in
> a tiny overhead for each filter instance, and in exchange, invoking
> filters is not only easier but the list-objects-filter public API is
> simpler and more opaque.
Hmmm...
> +struct filter_data {
> + /* Used by all filter types. */
> struct oidset *omits;
> +
> + enum list_objects_filter_result (*filter_object_fn)(
> + struct repository *r,
> + enum list_objects_filter_situation filter_situation,
> + struct object *obj,
> + const char *pathname,
> + const char *filename,
> + struct filter_data *filter_data);
> +
> + /* BEGIN tree:<depth> filter data */
> +
> + /*
> + * Maps trees to the minimum depth at which they were seen. It is not
> + * necessary to re-traverse a tree at deeper or equal depths than it has
> + * already been traversed.
> + *
> + * We can't use LOFR_MARK_SEEN for tree objects since this will prevent
> + * it from being traversed at shallower depths.
> + */
> + struct oidmap seen_at_depth;
> +
> + unsigned long exclude_depth;
> + unsigned long current_depth;
> +
> + /* BEGIN blobs:limit=<limit> filter data */
> +
> + unsigned long max_bytes;
> +
> + /* BEGIN sparse:... filter data */
> +
> + struct exclude_list el;
> +
> + size_t nr, alloc;
> + struct frame *array_frame;
> };
I am hoping that I am not misreading the intention but you do not
plan to use the above so that you can say "apply 'tree:depth=4' and
'blobs:limit=1G' at the same time" by filling the fields in a single
struct, do you? For combined filter, you'll still have multiple
instances of filter_data struct, strung together in a list that says
"all of these must be satisfied" or something like that, right?
And if that is the case, I am not sure why the above "struct with
all these fields" is a good idea. If these three (and probably we
will have more as the system evolves) sets of fields in this outer
struct for different filters were enclosed in a union, that would be
a different story, though.
