Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Support applying zstyle customizations for perforce_labels and perforce_clients similar to perforce_changes #81

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Support applying zstyle customizations for perforce_labels and perforce_clients similar to perforce_changes #81

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 6 additions & 4 deletions Completion/Unix/Command/_perforce
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -713,14 +713,15 @@ _perforce_charsets() {

(( $+functions[_perforce_clients] )) ||
_perforce_clients() {
local -a slash cl
local -a slash cl xargs
zstyle -a ":completion:${curcontext}:clients" clients xargs
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

_perforce_call_p4 foo … will call _call_program foo … which will look up the command style under the foo tag. Thus, instead of

zstyle ':completion:*:p4:*' clients $xargs

one ought to be able to do

zstyle ':completion:*:p4:*:clients' command p4 "${_perforce_global_options[@]}" "${(q)xargs[@]}"

for equivalent functionality. Should we document that rather than add a new (and rather specific) style?

(The extra (q) is because _call_program uses eval-like as opposed to exec-like semantics for its positional arguments.)

Copy link
Member

@danielshahaf danielshahaf Nov 9, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be clear, the second code snippet should work without this patch.

EDIT: It won't work at all; see my next comment.

Copy link
Author

@kting28 kting28 Nov 9, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got it.
With my patch I'm passing the following zstyle customizations:

zstyle ':completion:*:p4-*:changes' changes -c `p4 -Ztag -F "%clientName%" info`
zstyle ':completion:*:p4-*:clients' clients -u $USER -m 20 
zstyle ':completion:*:p4-*:labels' labels -u $USER -m 20

I think documenting how to do this without adding new code is ideal. However I'm not clear how to achieve say the -u $USER -m 20 with the snippet you provided. Can you provide an example? Sorry I'm new to this and was just following the _perforce_changes way of handling xargs.

Copy link
Member

@danielshahaf danielshahaf Nov 9, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

However I'm not clear how to achieve say the -u $USER -m 20 with the snippet you provided. Can you provide an example?

Sorry, you're right. It was rather a bad thinko on my part. The global variable won't have been created at the time the zstyle gets set, so a detour through zstyle -e is needed:

zstyle -e ':completion:*:p4-*:clients' command \
        'reply=( p4 "${_perforce_global_options[@]}" -u ${(q)USER} -m 20 )'

The principal change here is adding -e and assigning to $reply; adding the (q) is an independent change.

Note that _perforce_call_p4 clients … is also invoked by _perforce_client_dirs, so the value of the command style under the clients tag would be picked up by that callsite as well. If the two calls of _perforce_call_p4 clients … shouldn't always use the same command as each other, then they shouldn't both be using the same value (in this case, clients) as the "tag" argument of _call_program.

Sorry I'm new to this and was just following the _perforce_changes way of handling xargs.

It's always a good idea to follow prior art elsewhere in the same file. As to _perforce_changes, there are a number of moving parts there: two styles, one of which may be overridden by $NUMERIC under certain conditions. I'm not immediately sure what to suggest there.


# Are we completing after an @, or a client view in a filespec?
if ! compset -P '*@'; then
compset -P '//' && slash=(-S/ -q)
fi

cl=(${${${${(f)"$(_perforce_call_p4 clients clients)"}##Client\ }//:/\\:}/\ /:})
cl=(${${${${(f)"$(_perforce_call_p4 clients clients $xargs)"}##Client\ }//:/\\:}/\ /:})
[[ $#cl -eq 1 && $cl[1] = '' ]] && cl=()
_describe -t clients 'Perforce client' cl $slash
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1525,7 +1526,8 @@ _perforce_jobviews() {
(( $+functions[_perforce_labels] )) ||
_perforce_labels() {
local lline file
local -a ll match mbegin mend
local -a ll match mbegin mend xargs
zstyle -a ":completion:${curcontext}:labels" labels xargs

if [[ $argv[-1] = -tf ]]; then
argv=($argv[1,-2])
Expand All @@ -1534,7 +1536,7 @@ _perforce_labels() {
compset -P '*@(|\\\<|\\\>)(|=)'
fi

ll=(${${(f)"$(_perforce_call_p4 labels labels ${file:+\$file})"}//(#b)Label\ ([^[:blank:]]##)\ (*)/$match[1]:$match[2]})
ll=(${${(f)"$(_perforce_call_p4 labels labels $xargs ${file:+\$file})"}//(#b)Label\ ([^[:blank:]]##)\ (*)/$match[1]:$match[2]})
_describe -t labels 'Perforce label' ll
}

Expand Down