commit-graph: warn about incompatibilities only when trying to write
PATCH 1/1 commit-graph: warn about incompatibilities only when trying to write
From: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
In c85eec7fc37 (commit-graph: when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11), we started warning the user if they tried to write a commit-graph in a shallow repository, or one containing replace objects.
However, this patch was a bit overzealous, as Git now _also_ warns when merely checking whether there _is_ a usable commit graph, not only when writing one.
Let's suppress that warning unless we want to write a commit-graph.
---
commit-graph: warn about incompatibilities only when trying to write
As pointed out by Ævar in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected], my recent patch to trigger warnings in repositories that are incompatible with the commit-graph was a bit too overzealous. Here is a fix for that.
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-888%2Fdscho%2Fwarn-a-little-less-if-commit-graph-is-skipped-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-888/dscho/warn-a-little-less-if-commit-graph-is-skipped-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/888
commit-graph.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- t/t5318-commit-graph.sh | 13 +++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
commit-graph.c +12 -8
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static struct commit_graph *alloc_commit_graph(void)extern int read_replace_refs; -static int commit_graph_compatible (struct repository *r) +static int commit_graph_compatible (struct repository *r,int quiet) {if (!r->gitdir)return 0 ;
@@ -206,8 +206,9 @@ static int commit_graph_compatible(struct repository *r)if (read_replace_refs) {prepare_replace_object (r);if (hashmap_get_size (&r->objects->replace_map->map)) { -warning (_ ("repository contains replace objects; " -"skipping commit-graph" )); +if (!quiet) +warning (_ ("repository contains replace " +"objects; skipping commit-graph" ));return 0 ; } }
@@ -215,12 +216,15 @@ static int commit_graph_compatible(struct repository *r)prepare_commit_graft (r);if (r->parsed_objects && (r->parsed_objects->grafts_nr || r->parsed_objects->substituted_parent)) { -warning (_ ("repository contains (deprecated) grafts; " -"skipping commit-graph" )); +if (!quiet) +warning (_ ("repository contains (deprecated) grafts; " +"skipping commit-graph" ));return 0 ; }if (is_repository_shallow (r)) { -warning (_ ("repository is shallow; skipping commit-graph" )); +if (!quiet) +warning (_ ("repository is shallow; skipping " +"commit-graph" ));return 0 ; }
@@ -652,7 +656,7 @@ static int prepare_commit_graph(struct repository *r)*/ return 0 ; -if (!commit_graph_compatible (r)) +if (!commit_graph_compatible (r,1 ))return 0 ;prepare_alt_odb (r);
@@ -2123,7 +2127,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct object_directory *odb,warning (_ ("attempting to write a commit-graph, but 'core.commitGraph' is disabled" ));return 0 ; } -if (!commit_graph_compatible (the_repository)) +if (!commit_graph_compatible (the_repository,0 ))return 0 ; ctx =xcalloc (1 ,sizeof (struct write_commit_graph_context ));
t/t5318-commit-graph.sh +13 -0
@@ -741,4 +741,17 @@ test_expect_success 'corrupt commit-graph write (missing tree)' ' ) ' +test_expect_success 'warn about incompatibilities (only) when writing' ' + git init warn && + test_commit -C warn initial && + test_commit -C warn second && + git -C warn replace --graft second && + test_config -C warn gc.writecommitgraph true && + + git -C warn gc 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "skipping commit-graph" err && + git -C warn rev-list -1 second 2>err && + test_i18ngrep ! "skipping commit-graph" err +' + test_done
base-commit: c85eec7fc37e1ca79072f263ae6ea1ee305ba38c
Signature · 1 line
gitgitgadget
Quoted 11 lines · Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
From: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
In
c85eec7fc37(commit-graph: when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11), we started warning the user if they tried to write a commit-graph in a shallow repository, or one containing replace objects.However, this patch was a bit overzealous, as Git now _also_ warns when merely checking whether there _is_ a usable commit graph, not only when writing one.
Let's suppress that warning unless we want to write a commit-graph.
Ah, so that's what it's for, as I suspected :) Unfortunately...
Quoted 63 lines
Reported-by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>---
commit-graph: warn about incompatibilities only when trying to writeAs pointed out by Ævar in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected], my recent patch to trigger warnings in repositories that are incompatible with the commit-graph was a bit too overzealous. Here is a fix for that.Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-888%2Fdscho%2Fwarn-a-little-less-if-commit-graph-is-skipped-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-888/dscho/warn-a-little-less-if-commit-graph-is-skipped-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/888commit-graph.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- t/t5318-commit-graph.sh | 13 +++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)commit-graph.c +10
-6@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ static struct commit_graph *alloc_commit_graph(void)extern int read_replace_refs; -static int commit_graph_compatible (struct repository *r) +static int commit_graph_compatible (struct repository *r,int quiet) {if (!r->gitdir)return 0 ;@@ -206,8 +206,9 @@ static int commit_graph_compatible(struct repository *r)if (read_replace_refs) {prepare_replace_object (r);if (hashmap_get_size (&r->objects->replace_map->map)) { -warning (_ ("repository contains replace objects; " -"skipping commit-graph" )); +if (!quiet) +warning (_ ("repository contains replace " +"objects; skipping commit-graph" ));return 0 ; } }@@ -215,12 +216,15 @@ static int commit_graph_compatible(struct repository *r)prepare_commit_graft (r);if (r->parsed_objects && (r->parsed_objects->grafts_nr || r->parsed_objects->substituted_parent)) { -warning (_ ("repository contains (deprecated) grafts; " -"skipping commit-graph" )); +if (!quiet) +warning (_ ("repository contains (deprecated) grafts; " +"skipping commit-graph" ));return 0 ; }if (is_repository_shallow (r)) { -warning (_ ("repository is shallow; skipping commit-graph" )); +if (!quiet) +warning (_ ("repository is shallow; skipping " +"commit-graph" ));return 0 ; }
commit-graph.c static int prepare_commit_graph(struct repository *r) · line 659
Quoted 5 lines
commit-graph.c +1
-1@@ -652,7 +656,7 @@ static int prepare_commit_graph(struct repository *r)*/ return 0 ; -if (!commit_graph_compatible (r)) +if (!commit_graph_compatible (r,1 ))
...doing this will cause "git gc --auto" to run into persistent warnings. See a WIP patch-on-top in [1] below...
Quoted 21 lines
commit-graph.c +1
-1return 0 ;prepare_alt_odb (r);@@ -2123,7 +2127,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct object_directory *odb,warning (_ ("attempting to write a commit-graph, but 'core.commitGraph' is disabled" ));return 0 ; } -if (!commit_graph_compatible (the_repository)) +if (!commit_graph_compatible (the_repository,0 ))return 0 ; ctx =xcalloc (1 ,sizeof (struct write_commit_graph_context ));t/t5318-commit-graph.sh +1
-0@@ -741,4 +741,17 @@ test_expect_success 'corrupt commit-graph write (missing tree)' ' ) ' +test_expect_success 'warn about incompatibilities (only) when writing' '
t/t5318-commit-graph.sh test_expect_success 'corrupt commit-graph write (missing tree)' ' · line 754
Quoted 10 lines
t/t5318-commit-graph.sh +10
-0+ git init warn && + test_commit -C warn initial && + test_commit -C warn second && + git -C warn replace --graft second && + test_config -C warn gc.writecommitgraph true && + + git -C warn gc 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "skipping commit-graph" err && + git -C warn rev-list -1 second 2>err && + test_i18ngrep ! "skipping commit-graph" err
...I think it makes sense to have a "test_line_count = 1" here for these sorts of warnings we know/suspect might come up N times if we don't carefully tweak things.
I think (but have not tested) that we'll still write it 2 times if you have the graph configured to write on fetch, and we end up also running "gc" without gc.autoDetach.
In any case, here's a WIP patch to fix/demonstrate the bug here, consider it to have my SOB (but no need to retain the authorship).
Obviously needs amending (e.g. the "0 &&" case, just to reproduce the bug), and you might not want the s/int/enum/ cleanup while we're at it.
Also makes sense to add to add this case to the "gc --auto" test, i.e. if we have writeCommitGraph=true && a --depth=1 repo do we have no gc.log at the end as we should.
builtin/fetch.c +3 -3
@@ -1924,13 +1924,13 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)if (fetch_write_commit_graph >0 || (fetch_write_commit_graph <0 && the_repository->settings.fetch_write_commit_graph)) { -int commit_graph_flags =COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT ; +enum commit_graph_write_flags flags =COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT |COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS ;if (progress) - commit_graph_flags |=COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS ; + flags |=COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS ;write_commit_graph_reachable (the_repository->objects->odb, - commit_graph_flags, + flags,NULL ); }
builtin/gc.c +9 -4
@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)/* * Auto-gc should be least intrusive as possible. */ -if (!need_to_gc ()) +if (0 && !need_to_gc ())return 0 ;if (!quiet) {if (detach_auto)
@@ -689,10 +689,15 @@ int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) }prepare_repo_settings (the_repository); -if (the_repository->settings.gc_write_commit_graph ==1 ) +if (the_repository->settings.gc_write_commit_graph) { +enum commit_graph_write_flags flags =0 ; +if (!quiet && !daemonized) + flags |= (COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS | +COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS ); +write_commit_graph_reachable (the_repository->objects->odb, - !quiet && !daemonized ?COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS :0 , -NULL ); + flags,NULL ); + }if (auto_gc &&too_many_loose_objects ()) warning(_("There are too many unreachable loose objects; "
commit-graph.c +6 -5
@@ -198,7 +198,8 @@ static struct commit_graph *alloc_commit_graph(void)extern int read_replace_refs; -static int commit_graph_compatible (struct repository *r,int quiet) +static int commit_graph_compatible (struct repository *r, +enum commit_graph_write_flags flags) {if (!r->gitdir)return 0 ;
@@ -206,7 +207,7 @@ static int commit_graph_compatible(struct repository *r, int quiet)if (read_replace_refs) {prepare_replace_object (r);if (hashmap_get_size (&r->objects->replace_map->map)) { -if (!quiet) +if (flags &COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS )warning (_ ("repository contains replace " "objects; skipping commit-graph" ));return 0 ;
@@ -216,13 +217,13 @@ static int commit_graph_compatible(struct repository *r, int quiet)prepare_commit_graft (r);if (r->parsed_objects && (r->parsed_objects->grafts_nr || r->parsed_objects->substituted_parent)) { -if (!quiet) +if (flags &COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS )warning (_ ("repository contains (deprecated) grafts; " "skipping commit-graph" ));return 0 ; }if (is_repository_shallow (r)) { -if (!quiet) +if (flags &COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS )warning (_ ("repository is shallow; skipping " "commit-graph" ));return 0 ;
@@ -2127,7 +2128,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct object_directory *odb,warning (_ ("attempting to write a commit-graph, but 'core.commitGraph' is disabled" ));return 0 ; } -if (!commit_graph_compatible (the_repository,0 )) +if (!commit_graph_compatible (the_repository, flags))return 0 ; ctx =xcalloc (1 ,sizeof (struct write_commit_graph_context ));
commit-graph.h +4 -3
@@ -95,9 +95,10 @@ struct bloom_filter_settings *get_bloom_filter_settings(struct repository *r);enum commit_graph_write_flags {COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_APPEND = (1 <<0 ),COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS = (1 <<1 ), -COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT = (1 <<2 ), -COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS = (1 <<3 ), -COMMIT_GRAPH_NO_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS = (1 <<4 ), +COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS = (1 <<2 ), +COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT = (1 <<3 ), +COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS = (1 <<4 ), +COMMIT_GRAPH_NO_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS = (1 <<5 ), };enum commit_graph_split_flags {
Quoted 12 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Quoted 10 lines · Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
From: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
In
c85eec7fc37(commit-graph: when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11), we started warning the user if they tried to write a commit-graph in a shallow repository, or one containing replace objects.However, this patch was a bit overzealous, as Git now _also_ warns when merely checking whether there _is_ a usable commit graph, not only when writing one.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Let's suppress that warning unless we want to write a commit-graph.
Ah, so that's what it's for, as I suspected :) Unfortunately...
...
...doing this will cause "git gc --auto" to run into persistent warnings. See a WIP patch-on-top in [1] below...
Thanks for an input.
builtin/gc.c int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 597
Quoted 11 lines
builtin/gc.c +1
-1@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)/* * Auto-gc should be least intrusive as possible. */ -if (!need_to_gc ()) +if (0 && !need_to_gc ())return 0 ;
Leftover debugging cruft?
Quoted 4 lines
builtin/gc.c +1
-1-if (!quiet) +if (flags &COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS ) warning(_("repository contains replace ""objects; skipping commit-graph"));
I would have expected the code would arrange to make the bit cleared in the "flags" that would be passed around to the next call that inspects the same bit, so that we won't need to see repeated warning()s, but I do not see where it is done.
I am tempted to say that we should revert c85eec7f (commit-graph:
when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11) for the upcoming release. That would give us enough time to come up with and cook the solution in 'next' in the meantime.
Quoted 23 lines · Junio C Hamano
Quoted 12 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Quoted 10 lines · Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
From: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
In
c85eec7fc37(commit-graph: when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11), we started warning the user if they tried to write a commit-graph in a shallow repository, or one containing replace objects.However, this patch was a bit overzealous, as Git now _also_ warns when merely checking whether there _is_ a usable commit graph, not only when writing one.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Let's suppress that warning unless we want to write a commit-graph.
Ah, so that's what it's for, as I suspected :) Unfortunately...
...
...doing this will cause "git gc --auto" to run into persistent warnings. See a WIP patch-on-top in [1] below...Thanks for an input.
Quoted 13 lines
builtin/gc.c int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 597
Quoted 11 lines
builtin/gc.c +1
-1@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)/* * Auto-gc should be least intrusive as possible. */ -if (!need_to_gc ()) +if (0 && !need_to_gc ())return 0 ;Leftover debugging cruft?
Yeah, see the "Obviously needs amending" later in my E-Mail.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 4 lines
builtin/gc.c +1
-1-if (!quiet) +if (flags &COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_WARNINGS ) warning(_("repository contains replace ""objects; skipping commit-graph"));
I would have expected the code would arrange to make the bit cleared in the "flags" that would be passed around to the next call that inspects the same bit, so that we won't need to see repeated warning()s, but I do not see where it is done.
Right, we could do that, but I think the path down my "test_line_count = 1" is more useful.
I.e. it's pretty easy to reason about us not calling write_commit_graph() twice in the same process, so I don't think such flag clearing is needed.
But the case the user cares about is getting this warning twice when they invoke git, but we spawn two processes.
Quoted 4 lines
I am tempted to say that we should revert
c85eec7f(commit-graph:
when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11) for the upcoming release. That would give us enough time to come up with and cook the solution in 'next' in the meantime.
That's probably sensible.
Also, I noticed that we went through this whole saga in the past, see 25575015ca (repack: silence warnings when auto-enabled bitmaps cannot be built, 2019-07-31), including breaking background gc.
Quoted 10 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Quoted 4 lines
I am tempted to say that we should revert
c85eec7f(commit-graph:
when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11) for the upcoming release. That would give us enough time to come up with and cook the solution in 'next' in the meantime.That's probably sensible.
Also, I noticed that we went through this whole saga in the past, see
25575015ca(repack: silence warnings when auto-enabled bitmaps cannot be built, 2019-07-31), including breaking background gc.
Thanks and sigh ;-)
Hi,
Quoted 8 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Quoted 4 lines · Junio C Hamano
I am tempted to say that we should revert
c85eec7f(commit-graph:
when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11) for the upcoming release. That would give us enough time to come up with and cook the solution in 'next' in the meantime.That's probably sensible.
I agree. This close to v2.31.0, I do not want to rush things.
Quoted 3 lines
Also, I noticed that we went through this whole saga in the past, see
25575015ca(repack: silence warnings when auto-enabled bitmaps cannot be built, 2019-07-31), including breaking background gc.
Sounds like it.
Thank you for your valuable feedback!
Ciao,
Dscho
Quoted 19 lines · Johannes Schindelin
Hi,
Quoted 8 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Quoted 4 lines · Junio C Hamano
I am tempted to say that we should revert
c85eec7f(commit-graph:
when incompatible with graphs, indicate why, 2021-02-11) for the upcoming release. That would give us enough time to come up with and cook the solution in 'next' in the meantime.That's probably sensible.
I agree. This close to v2.31.0, I do not want to rush things.
Quoted 3 lines
Also, I noticed that we went through this whole saga in the past, see
25575015ca(repack: silence warnings when auto-enabled bitmaps cannot be built, 2019-07-31), including breaking background gc.
Quoted 6 lines
Sounds like it.
Thank you for your valuable feedback!
Ciao,
Dscho
Thanks, reverted and started today's integration cycle on top.