Teng Long

Commit Message

Teng Long March 30, 2022, 7:32 a.m. UTC

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 22:55:39 -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

> You're right; open_pack_bitmap_1() doesn't need to care about whether or
> not bitmap_git->midx is or isn't non-NULL, since:
> 
>   - if we did open a MIDX bitmap (which we will always attempt first
>     before trying to open single-pack bitmaps), then we won't even
>     bother to call open_pack_bitmap() at all.
> 
>   - if we _do_ end up within open_pack_bitmap_1(), then we _know_ that
>     no MIDX bitmap could be found/opened, so there is no need to check
>     in that case, either.
> 
> So I think we realistically could do something like:
> 
> --- 8< ---
> 
> diff --git a/pack-bitmap.c b/pack-bitmap.c
> index 97909d48da..6e7c89826d 100644
> --- a/pack-bitmap.c
> +++ b/pack-bitmap.c
> @@ -387,3 +387,3 @@ static int open_pack_bitmap_1(struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git, struct packed_git
> 
> -  if (bitmap_git->pack || bitmap_git->midx) {
> +  if (bitmap_git->pack) {
>       /* ignore extra bitmap file; we can only handle one */
> 
> --- >8 ---
> ...but having the conditional there from the pre-image doesn't hurt,
> either, and it makes the error clearer in case of an accidental
> regression where we start looking for single-pack bitmaps after
> successfully opening a multi-pack one.

I agree with the "accidental regression", it's a protection without
any disadvantages so far. So, if we don't remove the "bitmap_git->midx"
condition for some robust reason, then I think maybe we can let the
warning more detailed if the "accident" happens, like:


Does that make sense to you? 

And also I look codes in "open_midx_bitmap_1()", it's really nice for me to read and
understand, but the "char *idx_name = ..." declaration made me a litte confusing at
the beginning, I think maybe it's better to name it as "bitmap_name" for it, I know
bitmap is also a kind of index structure for using, but when I saw "idx", it brings
me to the ".idx" or "multi-pack-index" like files naturally in git context, of course
this is not a problem and maybe it's just me.

Comments

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason March 30, 2022, 1:17 p.m. UTC | #1

On Wed, Mar 30 2022, Teng Long wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 22:55:39 -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
>> You're right; open_pack_bitmap_1() doesn't need to care about whether or
>> not bitmap_git->midx is or isn't non-NULL, since:
>> 
>>   - if we did open a MIDX bitmap (which we will always attempt first
>>     before trying to open single-pack bitmaps), then we won't even
>>     bother to call open_pack_bitmap() at all.
>> 
>>   - if we _do_ end up within open_pack_bitmap_1(), then we _know_ that
>>     no MIDX bitmap could be found/opened, so there is no need to check
>>     in that case, either.
>> 
>> So I think we realistically could do something like:
>> 
>> --- 8< ---
>> 
>> diff --git a/pack-bitmap.c b/pack-bitmap.c
>> index 97909d48da..6e7c89826d 100644
>> --- a/pack-bitmap.c
>> +++ b/pack-bitmap.c
>> @@ -387,3 +387,3 @@ static int open_pack_bitmap_1(struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git, struct packed_git
>> 
>> -  if (bitmap_git->pack || bitmap_git->midx) {
>> +  if (bitmap_git->pack) {
>>       /* ignore extra bitmap file; we can only handle one */
>> 
>> --- >8 ---
>> ...but having the conditional there from the pre-image doesn't hurt,
>> either, and it makes the error clearer in case of an accidental
>> regression where we start looking for single-pack bitmaps after
>> successfully opening a multi-pack one.
>
> I agree with the "accidental regression", it's a protection without
> any disadvantages so far. So, if we don't remove the "bitmap_git->midx"
> condition for some robust reason, then I think maybe we can let the
> warning more detailed if the "accident" happens, like:
>
> diff --git a/pack-bitmap.c b/pack-bitmap.c
> index 91a6be358d..e64a85bc59 100644
> --- a/pack-bitmap.c
> +++ b/pack-bitmap.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,15 @@ static int open_midx_bitmap_1(struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git,
>                 struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>                 get_midx_filename(&buf, midx->object_dir);
>                 /* ignore extra bitmap file; we can only handle one */
> -               warning("ignoring extra bitmap file: %s", buf.buf);
> +               warning("%signoring extra bitmap file: %s",
> +                       bitmap_git->pack ?
> +                               xstrfmt("A non-MIDX bitmap has been opened: %s, ",
> +                                       bitmap_git->pack->pack_name) :
> +                       bitmap_git->midx ?
> +                               xstrfmt("A MIDX bitmap has been opened : %s, ",
> +                                       midx_bitmap_filename(bitmap_git->midx)) :
> +                                     "",
> +                       buf.buf);
>                 close(fd);

Aside from any bitmap-specific issues, let's not compose messages like
that via concat, it makes them harder to translate.

In this case the original message doesn't have _(), but looking at the
context that seems to be a simple omission.

It's more verbose, but it's better to split this out into 3x warning()
calls.

It also has the advantage of not leaking memory from the xstrfmt().

Patch

diff --git a/pack-bitmap.c b/pack-bitmap.c
index 91a6be358d..e64a85bc59 100644
--- a/pack-bitmap.c
+++ b/pack-bitmap.c
@@ -333,7 +333,15 @@  static int open_midx_bitmap_1(struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git,
                struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
                get_midx_filename(&buf, midx->object_dir);
                /* ignore extra bitmap file; we can only handle one */
-               warning("ignoring extra bitmap file: %s", buf.buf);
+               warning("%signoring extra bitmap file: %s",
+                       bitmap_git->pack ?
+                               xstrfmt("A non-MIDX bitmap has been opened: %s, ",
+                                       bitmap_git->pack->pack_name) :
+                       bitmap_git->midx ?
+                               xstrfmt("A MIDX bitmap has been opened : %s, ",
+                                       midx_bitmap_filename(bitmap_git->midx)) :
+                                     "",
+                       buf.buf);
                close(fd);
                strbuf_release(&buf);
                return -1;
@@ -398,9 +406,17 @@  static int open_pack_bitmap_1(struct bitmap_index *bitmap_git, struct packed_git
                return -1;
        }
 
-       if (bitmap_git->pack) {
+       if (bitmap_git->pack || bitmap_git->midx) {
                /* ignore extra bitmap file; we can only handle one */
-               warning("ignoring extra bitmap file: %s", packfile->pack_name);
+               warning("%signoring extra bitmap file: %s",
+                       bitmap_git->pack ?
+                               xstrfmt("A non-MIDX bitmap has been opened: %s, ",
+                                       bitmap_git->pack->pack_name) :
+                       bitmap_git->midx ?
+                               xstrfmt("A MIDX bitmap has been opened : %s, ",
+                                       midx_bitmap_filename(bitmap_git->midx)) :
+                                     "",
+                       packfile->pack_name);
                close(fd);
                return -1;
        }
diff --git a/t/t5310-pack-bitmaps.sh b/t/t5310-pack-bitmaps.sh
index f775fc1ce6..a962f6861f 100755
--- a/t/t5310-pack-bitmaps.sh
+++ b/t/t5310-pack-bitmaps.sh
@@ -421,6 +421,7 @@  test_expect_success 'complains about multiple pack bitmaps' '
                test_line_count = 2 bitmaps &&
 
                git rev-list --use-bitmap-index HEAD 2>err &&
+               grep "A non-MIDX bitmap has been opened" err &&
                grep "ignoring extra bitmap file" err
        )