Skip to content

Fix separators when mixing content and path-only output - #7

Merged
trethore merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
work/includefolder
Dec 11, 2025
Merged

Fix separators when mixing content and path-only output#7
trethore merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
work/includefolder

Conversation

@trethore

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

No description provided.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR fixes the separator logic when mixing file content blocks with path-only listings in the output. Previously, separators (---) were printed before every file after the first, regardless of output type. The fix ensures separators only appear between content blocks and before path-only listings that follow content blocks, while path-only mode produces no separators.

  • Refactored print_output() function to track output state and conditionally print separators based on content vs path-only mode
  • Added documentation explaining output format behavior in both man page and README
  • Cleaned up README formatting by standardizing list syntax and adding spacing

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
src/traverse.c Implemented state tracking (include_content_mode, content_blocks, last_output_was_content) to control separator placement based on whether showing content, ensuring separators only appear between content blocks and before path-only listings following content
doc/recap.1 Added description of output format behavior and fixed indentation of .MR macro
README.md Standardized list formatting from * to - bullets, added spacing for readability, and documented the output format rules in the Notes & Limits section

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@trethore
trethore merged commit 21cfe37 into main Dec 11, 2025
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants