On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:55:43AM -0800, Josh Steadmon wrote:
> On 2019.01.09 13:23, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:17:09PM -0800, Josh Steadmon wrote:
> > > diff --git a/list-objects-filter-options.c b/list-objects-filter-options.c
> > > index 5285e7674d..9efb3e9902 100644
> > > --- a/list-objects-filter-options.c
> > > +++ b/list-objects-filter-options.c
> >
> > > @@ -111,6 +112,21 @@ int opt_parse_list_objects_filter(const struct
> > > option *opt,
> > > return parse_list_objects_filter(filter_options, arg);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void expand_list_objects_filter_spec(
> > > + const struct list_objects_filter_options *filter,
> > > + struct strbuf *expanded_spec)
> > > +{
> > > + strbuf_init(expanded_spec, strlen(filter->filter_spec));
> > > + if (filter->choice == LOFC_BLOB_LIMIT)
> > > + strbuf_addf(expanded_spec, "blob:limit=%lu",
> > > + filter->blob_limit_value);
> > > + else if (filter->choice == LOFC_TREE_DEPTH)
> > > + strbuf_addf(expanded_spec, "tree:%lu",
> > > + filter->tree_exclude_depth);
> > > + else
> > > + strbuf_addstr(expanded_spec, filter->filter_spec);
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > All compilers error out with something like this:
> >
> > list-objects-filter-options.c: In function
> > ‘expand_list_objects_filter_spec’:
> > list-objects-filter-options.c:124:29: error: ‘LOFC_TREE_DEPTH’ undeclared
> > (first use in this function); did you mean ‘LOFC_TREE_NONE’?
> > else if (filter->choice == LOFC_TREE_DEPTH)
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > LOFC_TREE_NONE
> > list-objects-filter-options.c:124:29: note: each undeclared identifier is
> > reported only once for each function it appears in
> > list-objects-filter-options.c:126:14: error: ‘const struct
> > list_objects_filter_options’ has no member named ‘tree_exclude_depth’
> > filter->tree_exclude_depth);
> > ^~
> > make: *** [list-objects-filter-options.o] Error 1
> >
>
> Hmm, looks like you may not have applied this on top of
> md/list-objects-filter-by-depth? However, the most recent version of
> that branch has its own compilation errors at the moment.
Ah, OK. I didn't actually apply this patch anywhere, I just tried to
test this topic as it is in 'pu', where it branches off from current
'master'.
