From: Tian Yuchen Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 17:41:56 GMT Subject: Re: [GSoC PATCH] backfill: error out when HEAD cannot be parsed Message-ID: <0af26f29-5643-4ff2-b659-ae0fa234161a@malon.dev> In-Reply-To: <20260329183603.538241-1-vikingtc4@gmail.com> On 3/30/26 02:36, Trieu Huynh wrote: > handle_revision_arg() returns non-zero on failure, but do_backfill() > ignored the return value. On an empty repo with no commits, HEAD is > unborn and handle_revision_arg() fails, but backfill silently > continues with an empty revision walk and exits zero, looks like > success but did nothing. > > Check the return value and propagate the error, consistent with > how builtin/pack-objects.c handles handle_revision_arg() failures. > > Add a test to verify that backfill on an empty repository fails > with a clear error message. > Aside from the minor flaws Karthik mentioned, I think this commit message is spot on. > Signed-off-by: Trieu Huynh > --- > builtin/backfill.c | 3 ++- > t/t5620-backfill.sh | 6 ++++++ > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/backfill.c b/builtin/backfill.c > index 27a301f9b2..4b2db94173 100644 > --- a/builtin/backfill.c > +++ b/builtin/backfill.c > @@ -96,7 +96,8 @@ static int do_backfill(struct backfill_context *ctx) > } > > repo_init_revisions(ctx->repo, &revs, ""); > - handle_revision_arg("HEAD", &revs, 0, 0); > + if (handle_revision_arg("HEAD", &revs, 0, 0)) > + return error(_("unable to parse HEAD revision")); > Looks good to me. > info.blobs = 1; > info.tags = info.commits = info.trees = 0; > diff --git a/t/t5620-backfill.sh b/t/t5620-backfill.sh > index ff67e8ecea..91b5115732 100755 > --- a/t/t5620-backfill.sh > +++ b/t/t5620-backfill.sh > @@ -101,6 +101,12 @@ test_expect_success 'backfill no flag on non-TTY is silent' ' > test_grep ! "Downloading batches" err > ' > > +test_expect_success 'backfill on empty repo fails gracefully' ' > + git init empty-repo && > + test_must_fail git -C empty-repo backfill 2>err && > + grep "unable to parse HEAD" err Remember your last patch? Wouldn't it be better to use 'test_grep' here? It's easy to see that the original code uses 'test_grep' (a few lines above): > test_grep ! "Downloading batches" err Wouldn't it be better to maintain consistency? ;) > +' > + > test_expect_success 'backfill --sparse without sparse-checkout fails' ' > git init not-sparse && > test_must_fail git -C not-sparse backfill --sparse 2>err && Regards, Yuchen