Reuse blacklisting code in exp_archive.

Reuse blacklisting code in exp_archive.

BUG=692940
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003
Committed: https://github.com/luci/luci-go/commit/6d809e0e344bd422a4c540b2442d9126f5421d6d

[mcgreevy, 2017-07-19 05:39:10]

Description was changed from

==========
reuse blacklisting code in exp_archive.

BUG=692940
==========

to

==========
Reuse blacklisting code in exp_archive.

BUG=692940
==========

[mcgreevy, 2017-07-19 05:39:10]

mcgreevy@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ tansell@chromium.org

[mcgreevy, 2017-07-21 04:21:24]

<message typed in the hope that it will trigger a review-request email to be
sent>

[mithro, 2017-07-21 04:58:51]

LGTM.

Random thought -- this shouldn't affect performance right? Nothing in the new
blacklisting code actually does any IO?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003/diff/20001/client/cmd/isolate/exp_...
File client/cmd/isolate/exp_archive.go (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003/diff/20001/client/cmd/isolate/exp_...
client/cmd/isolate/exp_archive.go:155: // returnSkip returns the return value
expected from a filepath.WalkFunc in the case where no more processing of file
should occur.
nit: This sentence is a bit clunky.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003/diff/20001/client/cmd/isolate/exp_...
client/cmd/isolate/exp_archive.go:158: // Must not return io.SkipDir for file,
filepath.walk() handles this badly.
Could you add a reference to info about this? Maybe a bug or godoc link?

[mcgreevy, 2017-07-21 05:40:38]

> Random thought -- this shouldn't affect performance right?
> Nothing in the new blacklisting code actually does any IO?

No, no IO, no performance issues.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003/diff/20001/client/cmd/isolate/exp_...
File client/cmd/isolate/exp_archive.go (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003/diff/20001/client/cmd/isolate/exp_...
client/cmd/isolate/exp_archive.go:155: // returnSkip returns the return value
expected from a filepath.WalkFunc in the case where no more processing of file
should occur.
On 2017/07/21 04:58:51, mithro wrote:
> nit: This sentence is a bit clunky.

I've reworded; it's quite hard to word simply, though. Any suggestions are
welcome.

I've also moved this into a common package, since it was duplicated in
directory.go.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003/diff/20001/client/cmd/isolate/exp_...
client/cmd/isolate/exp_archive.go:158: // Must not return io.SkipDir for file,
filepath.walk() handles this badly.
On 2017/07/21 04:58:51, mithro wrote:
> Could you add a reference to info about this? Maybe a bug or godoc link?

Done.

[mithro, 2017-07-21 06:23:52]

Still LGTM.

[mcgreevy, 2017-07-24 03:46:04]

The CQ bit was checked by mcgreevy@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-07-24 03:46:10]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-07-24 03:52:03]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 40001, "attempt_start_ts": 1500867964615580,
"parent_rev": "02528b08305c7b4bd442e5cf7ce9c5d3e8324f91", "commit_rev":
"6d809e0e344bd422a4c540b2442d9126f5421d6d"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-07-24 03:52:07]

Description was changed from

==========
Reuse blacklisting code in exp_archive.

BUG=692940
==========

to

==========
Reuse blacklisting code in exp_archive.

BUG=692940

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2981223003
Committed:
https://github.com/luci/luci-go/commit/6d809e0e344bd422a4c540b2442d9126f5421d6d
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-07-24 03:52:08]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as
https://github.com/luci/luci-go/commit/6d809e0e344bd422a4c540b2442d9126f5421d6d