| Message ID | 070a717aabbac31ae44567dbe54a325029f9931f.1600743698.git.jonathantanmy@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix overriding of partial clone filter when lazy-fetching | expand |
Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes: > +test_expect_success 'ensure that filter is written to config' ' > + FILTER=$(git -C client config --get remote.blah.partialclonefilter) && > + test "$FILTER" == "blob:limit=0" I'll do s/==/=/ locally because otherwise the test-lint-shell-syntax will choke on this line. No need to resend only this line. Thanks. > +' > + > test_expect_success 'partial clone: warn if server does not support object filtering' ' > rm -rf server client && > test_create_repo server &&
On 9/22/2020 1:46 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes: > >> +test_expect_success 'ensure that filter is written to config' ' >> + FILTER=$(git -C client config --get remote.blah.partialclonefilter) && >> + test "$FILTER" == "blob:limit=0" > > I'll do s/==/=/ locally because otherwise the test-lint-shell-syntax > will choke on this line. No need to resend only this line. Wouldn't "test_cmp_config" be a better here? It seems like this is testing the "git clone" behavior of the previous test, so it could be added to that test instead. Thanks, -Stolee
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes: > On 9/22/2020 1:46 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes: >> >>> +test_expect_success 'ensure that filter is written to config' ' >>> + FILTER=$(git -C client config --get remote.blah.partialclonefilter) && >>> + test "$FILTER" == "blob:limit=0" >> >> I'll do s/==/=/ locally because otherwise the test-lint-shell-syntax >> will choke on this line. No need to resend only this line. > > Wouldn't "test_cmp_config" be a better here? It seems like > this is testing the "git clone" behavior of the previous test, > so it could be added to that test instead. TIL that one ;-) "git config --get" gives only a single instance, but in this particular case, shouldn't we be verifying not just that the expected one is found, but it is the only one, with "--get-all"? FWIW, many uses of that test helper may want to be tightened the same way. In short, unless we are testing the last-one-wins behaviour, and especially when we are interested in what changes our tested operation makes to the config file's contents, we should be using "--get-all" instead of the default "--get", I suspect. Thanks.
diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c index a6d3268661..752148eec5 100644 --- a/builtin/fetch.c +++ b/builtin/fetch.c @@ -1677,7 +1677,7 @@ static inline void fetch_one_setup_partial(struct remote *remote) * If this is a partial-fetch request, we enable partial on * this repo if not already enabled and remember the given * filter-spec as the default for subsequent fetches to this - * remote. + * remote if there is currently no default filter-spec. */ if (filter_options.choice) { partial_clone_register(remote->name, &filter_options); diff --git a/list-objects-filter-options.c b/list-objects-filter-options.c index b66314560a..defd3dfd10 100644 --- a/list-objects-filter-options.c +++ b/list-objects-filter-options.c @@ -344,11 +344,19 @@ void partial_clone_register( const char *remote, struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options) { + struct promisor_remote *promisor_remote; char *cfg_name; char *filter_name; /* Check if it is already registered */ - if (!promisor_remote_find(remote)) { + if ((promisor_remote = promisor_remote_find(remote))) { + if (promisor_remote->partial_clone_filter) + /* + * Remote is already registered and a filter is already + * set, so we don't need to do anything here. + */ + return; + } else { if (upgrade_repository_format(1) < 0) die(_("unable to upgrade repository format to support partial clone")); diff --git a/t/t5601-clone.sh b/t/t5601-clone.sh index 15fb64c18d..7c5cf5a2ec 100755 --- a/t/t5601-clone.sh +++ b/t/t5601-clone.sh @@ -672,6 +672,11 @@ test_expect_success 'partial clone with -o' ' git clone -o blah --filter=blob:limit=0 "file://$(pwd)/server" client ' +test_expect_success 'ensure that filter is written to config' ' + FILTER=$(git -C client config --get remote.blah.partialclonefilter) && + test "$FILTER" == "blob:limit=0" +' + test_expect_success 'partial clone: warn if server does not support object filtering' ' rm -rf server client && test_create_repo server &&
When a fetch with the --filter argument is made, the configured default filter is set even if one already exists. This change was made in 5e46139376 ("builtin/fetch: remove unique promisor remote limitation", 2019-06-25) - in particular, changing from: * If this is the FIRST partial-fetch request, we enable partial * on this repo and remember the given filter-spec as the default * for subsequent fetches to this remote. to: * If this is a partial-fetch request, we enable partial on * this repo if not already enabled and remember the given * filter-spec as the default for subsequent fetches to this * remote. (The given filter-spec is "remembered" even if there is already an existing one.) This is problematic whenever a lazy fetch is made, because lazy fetches are made using "git fetch --filter=blob:none", but this will also happen if the user invokes "git fetch --filter=<filter>" manually. Therefore, restore the behavior prior to 5e46139376, which writes a filter-spec only if the current fetch request is the first partial-fetch one (for that remote). Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> --- builtin/fetch.c | 2 +- list-objects-filter-options.c | 10 +++++++++- t/t5601-clone.sh | 5 +++++ 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)