Zoxide: a Better Cd Command

  #!ruby
  
  if ARGV.size < 1
    puts "Usage: wz path"
    exit
  end
  
  # Get current working directory
  current_dir = "#{Dir.pwd}/"
  # puts "Current directory: #{current_dir}"
  
  # Run git worktree list and capture the output
  worktree_output = `git worktree list`
  
  # Split output into lines and process
  worktrees = worktree_output.split("\n")
  
  # Extract all worktree paths
  worktree_paths = worktrees.map { |wt| "#{wt.split.first}/" }
  # puts "Worktree paths: #{worktree_paths}"
  
  # First path is always the root worktree
  root_wt_path = worktree_paths[0]
  
  # Find current worktree by comparing with pwd
  current_wt_path = worktree_paths.find do |path|
    # puts "Path: #{path}"
    current_dir.start_with?(path) 
  end
  
  if current_wt_path == root_wt_path
    zoxide_destination = `zoxide query --exclude "#{Dir.pwd}" "#{ARGV[0]}"`.strip
    puts zoxide_destination
    exit 0
  end
  
  current_dir_in_root_wt = current_dir.sub(current_wt_path, root_wt_path)
  Dir.chdir(current_dir_in_root_wt)
  current_dir = "#{Dir.pwd}/"
  # puts "Current directory: #{current_dir}"
  
  # puts "Querying zoxide for #{ARGV[0]}"
  zoxide_destination = `zoxide query --exclude "#{Dir.pwd}" "#{ARGV[0]}"`.strip
  # puts "zoxide destination: #{zoxide_destination}"
  Dir.chdir(zoxide_destination)
  current_dir = "#{Dir.pwd}/"
  
  if current_dir.start_with?(root_wt_path)
    target_dir = current_dir.sub(root_wt_path, current_wt_path)
    puts target_dir
    exit 0
  end
  
  puts Dir.pwd
  exit 0
  
  

  # Worktree aware form of zoxide's z command.
  function w() {
   cd $(wz $@)
  }

https://github.com/agkozak/zsh-z

One added bonus of such file tree bookmarks via variables (over a similar `alias a='cd foo'`) is that if you get muscle-memory/active memory for those few abbreviations other use cases like `make -C $a` also work. I usually leave `$hb` & `$lb` set to `$HOME/bin` and `/usr/local/bin`, for example.

But my question is specifically about relative vs. absolute paths when recalling directory traversal from history. I'm still struggling to follow how you'd use Zsh history as a zoxide replacement without always using absolute paths.

The other issue is that it creates a separate "hop" which adds key strokes and cognitive load (i.e., I can't just jump directly to a subdirectory or related directory I first have to jump to a "junction" directory then to my destination).

In any event, I could see how that would be a reasonable approach in the absence zoxide, but those are the reasons I personally still prefer zoxide. (For the record, zoxide has some nice techniques for making a match more specific, e.g., `z foo bar` will hop to a dir containing `bar` only if it's in a subdirectory containing `foo`.

Just `find . -type d | fzf` to determine what dir to change to (or ~ for "anywhere else")

1. Make an alias fcd 2. Make a tab complete that does that for the command fcd

This is kind of 101 bash - just DIY.

Here's mine:

(2) is the hardest part - just write something that works with `complete` and fzf. Nowadays this is childs play for any AI to just spit out.

    fz_comp()
    {
      COMPREPLY=()
      local cur="${COMP_WORDS[COMP_CWORD]}"
      local prev="${COMP_WORDS[COMP_CWORD-1]}"
      local opts="none"
      if [ -z "$cur" ];then
        COMPREPLY=($(find $1 -type d | fzf --preview="ls {} -l"))
        return
      fi
      COMPREPLY=($(find $1 -type d | grep $cur | fzf --preview="ls {} -l"))
    }

    alias fcd=cd
    _fcd(){ fz_comp $(pwd) }
    complete -F _fcd fcd

I use autojump, which is a lot like zoxide (possible predates it). It stores all the directories you've visited in an SQLite DB (along with the rank for each). I wrote a shell keybinding that presents me with fzf, along with the directories I've visited, in rank order.

With just a few keystrokes, I can visit any directory I've ever visited, really fast. It doesn't need to be the top ranking directory for my query.

I can't live without it now.

Some tools have a hard time solving some problems when the problem is us.

When I write scripts I'll just target /bin/sh, or /bin/bash if necessary. Never saw a reason to write zsh or fish scripts.

Am I missing something useful?

My whole experience of it is just seeing it's advertisements on every CLI tool page. Someone else here probably has something more meaningful to say about it though.

Basically somewhere that source would not behave as you wanted?

I'm also uncertain what you mean wrt a binary. A binary will only have the environment variables available to the shell it's executed in - or do you mean that you'd also want it to inherit variables the binary itself might read from disk via .env files or similar?

Maybe that is why they love these CLI tools written by Rust. ;)

Learn your basic UNIX/POSIX utilities first, please, before you start preaching because of Rust. :D