Matching for files inside folder does not seem to behave like .gitignore's

[carlescufi]

Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but according to the .gitignore doc:

The pattern foo/*, matches foo/test.json (a regular file), foo/bar (a directory), but it does not match foo/bar/hello.c (a regular file), as the asterisk in the pattern does not match bar/hello.c which has a slash in it.

However, if I try the following:

In [16]: spec = pathspec.GitIgnoreSpec.from_lines(["foo/*"])

In [17]: spec.match_file("foo/bar/hello.c")
Out[17]: True

Am I not using the right spec, or is there something that I am not grasping?

[carlescufi]

I think this is a duplicate of #92.
However, it'd be great if python-pathspec could offer the option to behave either way, because this is required when dealing with GitHub's CODEOWNER files:

# The docs/* pattern will match files like
# docs/getting-started.md but not further nested files like
# docs/build-app/troubleshooting.md.
docs/* docs@example.com

[cpburnz]

This is a discrepancy between what's documented in the .gitignore docs and how git actually behaves. I've considered reintroducing a version of gitwildmatch that matches only the behavior described in that document which is how it began before the many edge-cases of git's behavior were reported over the years.

You can see git's behavior with your directory tree:

foo
foo/bar
foo/bar/hello.c
foo/test.json

And .gitignore of:

foo/*

.gitignore will match (ignore) both files:

$ git check-ignore -v foo/test.json
.gitignore:1:foo/*      foo/test.json
$ git check-ignore -v foo/bar/hello.c
.gitignore:1:foo/*      foo/bar/hello.c

PathSpec and GitIgnoreSpec both match the same files:

>>> spec = GitIgnoreSpec.from_lines(["foo/*"])
>>> spec.match_file('foo/bar/hello.c')
True
>>> spec.match_file('foo/test.json')
True

>>> spec = PathSpec.from_lines('gitwildmatch', ["foo/*"])
>>> spec.match_file('foo/bar/hello.c')
True
>>> spec.match_file('foo/test.json')
True

[carlescufi]

Thanks for the explanation @cpburnz. Any chance we could get the pathspec library to conditionally behave like the documentation states, so that we could use it for files like GitHub's CODEOWNERS? Perhaps an optional flag?

[cpburnz]

@carlescufi I'll add a new pattern that strictly matches the documentation. I'll use a new pattern rather than an optional flag because it'll make the implementation more clear cut. I don't expect I'll be able to get to it for a couple weeks though.

[carlescufi]

@carlescufi I'll add a new pattern that strictly matches the documentation. I'll use a new pattern rather than an optional flag because it'll make the implementation more clear cut. I don't expect I'll be able to get to it for a couple weeks though.

Great! thank you @cpburnz!