confusing interplay between dot-ignore and fs_grep_files options.suppress

[rxgrant]

From .jp/mcp/tools/fs/grep_files.toml

# Disclosure blocks like `.git/` belong on every tool that returns contents, so
# keep those in step. `**/target/` is a flood block and lives only on the tools
# that enumerate in bulk; `fs_read_file` omits it deliberately, so an exact build
# log stays retrievable (issue #626).
options.suppress = [".git/", "**/target/"]

Ignoring the technobabble offense here, one of my project's .ignore files unignores some things under target/:

[...]

# un-ignore desired trees
!**/target/doc/
!**/target/doc/**
!**/target/log/
!**/target/log/**
!/target/payload-review/
!/target/payload-review/**
!/target/CLAUDE*

I think the fs_grep_files design is suggesting that since the tool can find target/doc/ by the LLM directly naming that path, nothing is irretrievably ignored. It's just suppressed from nonspecific searches. So even though I have a complex .ignore, the upstream options.suppress is still right for me.

I agree that all these concerns are different:

• read concerns;
• write concerns;
• context concerns; and
• staging concerns.

And it's even different programs reading the current separate files. Yet it still feels like wizard-or-well-visualized configuration needs to focus on this more for devs to be able to understand their project's settings.

I kind of feel like this issue is a journal entry of realizing the design, and I should delete it. Ugh, I will leave it up for a day to collect comments.

[JeanMertz]

Ignoring the technobabble offense here

😆

Yes, this is one of the downsides of the non-core code being designed and checked, but not hand-written, sometimes comments like these sneak in. I hope our judges will make this less likely in the future.

I agree that all these concerns are different:

Indeed, and that is why we have different knobs to (hopefully) achieve all the results for the different use-cases. Let me know if that is not the case, though.