| msg65652 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) *  |
Date: 2008-04-20 21:28 |
| Here's a first draft of a small addon to shutil.copytree. This patch allows excluding some folders or files from the copy, given glob-style patterns. A callable can also be provided instead of the patterns, for a more complex filtering. I didn't upgrade Doc/shutil.rst yet in this patch, as this can be done when the change will be accepted and in its final shape I guess. |
|
|
| msg65663 - (view) |
Author: Alexander Belopolsky (belopolsky) * |
Date: 2008-04-21 13:41 |
| On the interface, I would suggest renaming 'exclude' to 'ignore' for consistency with filecmp.dircmp. Also consider detecting file separator in the patterns and interpreting them as an absolute (if pattern.startswith(pathsep)) or relative with respect to src. On the implementation, consider making 'exclude_files' a set for a faster lookup. It should also be possible to refactor the code to avoid checking the type of 'exclude' on every file and every recursion. |
|
|
| msg65670 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-04-22 07:39 |
| I changed the patch based on all remarks. For the absolute path, I was wondering if it would be useful since calls are recursive, relative to the visited directory. |
|
|
| msg65682 - (view) |
Author: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram)  |
Date: 2008-04-22 19:56 |
| Is there any reason for rmtree also to not support this exclusion feature? Both copytree and rmtree explicitly iterate over list of names and as I see it, this exclusion is really about which names to ignore. Already, copytree and rmtree have inconsistencies (rmtree has 'onerror' while 'copytree' doesn't) and it would be nice to not add more. |
|
|
| msg65906 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-04-27 23:00 |
| Agreed, rmtree should have it as well. I'll add that in the patch as well, |
|
|
| msg65907 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-04-27 23:16 |
| while working on the patch to add the same feature in rmtree, I realized this is a non sense since the root folder itself is removed at the end of the function when all its content is removed. So, unless we change this behavior, which I doubt it is a good idea, it won't be possible. Maybe another API could be added in shutil, in order to do any kind of treatment in a tree, like removing files, or whatever, and without copying it like copytree does. |
|
|
| msg65908 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-04-27 23:32 |
| I have thaught of various ways to write this new API for the deletion use case, but I think nothing makes it easier and shorter than a simple os.walk call. |
|
|
| msg65909 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-04-28 00:17 |
| This patch includes the documentation for shutils.rst as well. (I removed the older patches) |
|
|
| msg65919 - (view) |
Author: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram) |
Date: 2008-04-28 14:12 |
| My update with email failed so I am just copying my response here: > while working on the patch to add the same feature in rmtree, I realized > this is a non sense since the root folder itself is removed at the end > of the function when all its content is removed. Indeed. Sorry about that. > So, unless we change this behavior, which I doubt it is a good idea, it > won't be possible. I agree. But in general, it would be nice to separate file list generation and the actual operation. Something similar to shell where it resolves the pattern while the actual command itself cares only about the files passed to it. This is not necessarily a comment on this patch which I am hoping I can check it out soon. |
|
|
| msg65924 - (view) |
Author: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram) |
Date: 2008-04-28 17:49 |
| The patch looks good to me. |
|
|
| msg65925 - (view) |
Author: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram) |
Date: 2008-04-28 17:53 |
| I forgot to add that the example provided in rst doc is incorrect. The copytree() in that example should be given destination path as well. In addition, the docstring for copytree mentions "which is a directory list". "directory list" is a bit vague and should ideally be replaced by something like "list of elements" (which is what appears in the doc) or "list of entries". |
|
|
| msg66149 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-05-03 08:33 |
| Right, thanks. I have corrected the doc, and pushed some examples at the bottom of the module documentation. |
|
|
| msg67158 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-05-21 15:04 |
| patch with the new trunk |
|
|
| msg67225 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2008-05-23 10:02 |
| Hi Tarek, here's a review: * The new docs are not very clear about ignore_patterns being a function factory. E.g.: """The callable must return a list of folder and file names relative to the path, that will be ignored in the copy process. :func:`ignore_patterns` is an example of such callable.""" Rather, the *return value* of ignore_patterns is an example of such a callable. * The new docs should also note that copytree is called recursively, and therefore the ignore callable will be called once for each directory that is copied. * Instead of "path and its elements" the terminology should be "directory" and "the list of its contents, as returned by os.listdir()". Likewise, "folder" should be "directory". * The second new example makes me wonder if *ignore* is the correct name for the parameter. Is *filter* better? * A nit; the signature should be "copytree(src, dst[, symlinks[, ignore]])". * The patch adds a space in the definition of rmtree(). |
|
|
| msg67269 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2008-05-23 21:29 |
| Thanks Georg, I have changed the patch accordingly. There's one issue left: the name of the parameter (ignore) I have renamed it like this on Alexander suggestion, for consistency with filecmp.dircmp which uses ignore. By the way, I was wondering: do we need to used reStructuredText as well in function doctstrings ? |
|
|
| msg69276 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2008-07-05 10:13 |
| Committed in r64722. Thanks everyone! |
|
|