Support negated ignore patterns #70
Conversation
commit: |
|
oh, wow. first of all, thanks a lot for taking your time into implementing this, such a nice solution. how would patching picomatch work for users who download tinyglobby from npm? sadly, i don't think patching it is viable long term, but we can figure out something else or send a PR to picomatch |
Oh no, bad idea indeed, this wasn't my intention at all
Yes, this PR is mostly to keep the conversation going. And for you and others the ability to actually try it out e.g. when looking to migrate away from globby and see if this is a viable route. Would you be interested in this solution given that picomatch would accept my PR? Tbh I don't fancy publishing (and maintaining) a fork of picomatch, so I'm not sure what other options we have here. |
|
i think i'm fine with anything that doesn't involve patching, whether it is a picomatch PR or something more complex |
|
Sorry I phrased that poorly. With "this solution" I meant this PR without the patch part. Thanks! WIP. |
|
i think so? i think i can see some things that could be refactored (unsure though) and probably needs a small cleanup when that happens but other than that yes |
|
Here's the PR: micromatch/picomatch#137 |
webpro
force-pushed
the
feat/unignore
branch
from
d81fc09 to
39fe550
Compare
webpro
force-pushed
the
feat/unignore
branch
from
39fe550 to
6d8fcbd
Compare
|
When this is ready we should test it against cspell to make sure we don't break it since it uses a negated ignore pattern and the behavior here will be changing |
Fixes #32
This PR adds support for negated ignore patterns. Please see #32 for more details and use cases.
This is a solution that should not impact performance at all if no negated ignore patterns are used. However, it does require a patched picomatch, and I'm not sure whether there's interest in a PR upstream. But before I'm even trying to go there I wanted to gauge interest here.
The idea/patch: we could leverage picomatch's
onIgnorefunction to un-ignore if ignored matches also match a negated ignore pattern.The problem: it requires to un-ignore matches within picomatch and this is a relatively low-impact solution for picomatch, but I'm afraid even requiring an explicit
true(orfalse?) return value might still be a breaking change looking at the scale it's being used. Yet at the same time it could also actually mean a fix in certain cases and removing a major hurdle when looking to migrate from globby to tinyglobby.This PR still needs some work:
result.outputtounignoreMatcher? I also sawresult.inputand I'm not sure about the difference.picomatchwhen creatingunignoreMatcher.