revset: allow tags() to take a pattern for an argument

[lukerandall]

Checklist

If applicable:

• I have updated CHANGELOG.md
• I have updated the documentation (README.md, docs/, demos/)
• I have updated the config schema (cli/src/config-schema.json)
• I have added tests to cover my changes

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

[thoughtpolice]

Looks fine, but would you mind adding a couple tests (just 2 or 3 very simple ones) inside the cat cli/tests/test_tag_command.rs suite? That will ensure that not only is the revset engine parsing and handling patterns correctly, but that from a user POV the command behaves as expected. You can just add a new fn test_tag_patterns() and copy/paste the boilerplate from the other existing test. Otherwise LGTM.

[yuja]

Thanks!

[lukerandall]

@yuja I'm not sure what PR etiquette is here, in general do you prefer resolving your conversations once you're satisfied with the resolution, or do I do it once I've addressed the issue?

[martinvonz]

@yuja I'm not sure what PR etiquette is here, in general do you prefer resolving your conversations once you're satisfied with the resolution, or do I do it once I've addressed the issue?

It's the middle of the night in Japan, so I'll answer. Feel free to mark the issue resolved if you're reasonably confident you resolved it. If you still missed something (e.g. because you misunderstood a reviewer's request), we (collectively, including you) can always fix it after it's merged. I interpret Yuya's approval stamp to mean that the remaining changes were small enough that he trusted you to address them. Still, in a case like this where the change was fairly large (moving the tests to the lib crate), I would personally give the reviewer another chance to review the new state before I merged.