Re: [PATCH] submodules: fix of regression on fetching of non-init subsub-repo
- From
- Peter Kästle <peter.kaestle@nokia.com>
- Date
- Dec 7, 2020, 08:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <0deeeabe-9590-db7a-4a07-447d43df7a24@nokia.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cR69HJefRMfH_5-dHOMVY-VmVgbqQuWV90ednDEjrnExw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Eric,
On 04.12.20 19:06, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM Peter Kaestle <peter.kaestle@nokia.com> wrote: >> [...] >> Furthermore a regression test case is added, which tests for recursive >> fetches on a superproject with uninitialized sub repositories. This >> issue was leading to an infinite loop when doing a revert of a62387b. > > Just a few small comments (nothing comprehensive) from a quick scan of > the patch... > > Mostly they are just minor style issues, not necessarily worth a > re-roll, but there is one actionable item.
thanks for your comments. A new patch will follow soon.
Show 13 quoted lines
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Kaestle <peter.kaestle@nokia.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh b/t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh
>> @@ -719,4 +719,98 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch new submodule commit intermittently referenced by sup
>> +add_commit_push () {
>> + dir="$1"
>> + msg="$2"
>> + shift 2
>
> We typically recommend including these assignments in the &&-chain to
> future-proof against someone later inserting code above them and not
> realizing that that code is not part of the &&-chain, in which case if
> the new code fails, the failure might go unnoticed.ok
Show 25 quoted lines
>
>> + git -C "$dir" add "$@" &&
>> + git -C "$dir" commit -a -m "$msg" &&
>> + git -C "$dir" push
>> +}
>> +
>> +compare_refs_in_dir () {
>> + fail= &&
>> + if test "x$1" = 'x!'
>> + then
>> + fail='!' &&
>> + shift
>> + fi &&
>> + git -C "$1" rev-parse --verify "$2" >expect &&
>> + git -C "$3" rev-parse --verify "$4" >actual &&
>> + eval $fail test_cmp expect actual
>> +}
>
> We have a test_cmp_rev() similar to this but it doesn't support -C as
> some of our other test functions do. I briefly wondered if it would
> make sense to extend it to understand -C, but even that wouldn't help
> this case since compare_refs_in_dir() introduced here involves two
> distinct directories. The need here is so special-purpose that it
> likely would not make sense to upgrade test_cmp_rev() to accommodate
> it. Okay.Yes, I saw that there's a similar function and I tried to modify this one first. Unfortunately this didn't work without touching much unaffected test code. So I propose to continue with this additional function.
Show 17 quoted lines
>> +test_expect_success 'setup nested submodule fetch test' '
>> + # does not depend on any previous test setups
>> +
>> + for repo in outer middle inner
>> + do
>> + (
>> + git init --bare $repo &&
>> + git clone $repo ${repo}_content &&
>> + echo "$repo" >"${repo}_content/file" &&
>> + add_commit_push ${repo}_content "initial" file
>> + ) || return 1
>> + done &&
>
> What is the purpose of the subshell here? Is it to ensure that commits
> in each repo have identical timestamps? Or is it just for making the
> && and || expression more clear? If the latter, we normally don't
> bother with the parentheses.It was intended to make the correlation of && and || clear. I have experienced many cases in the past where things were screwed because it was not clearly understood by everybody. I'll propose next patch without this subshell.
Show 18 quoted lines
>> + git clone outer A && >> + git -C A submodule add "$pwd/middle" && >> + git -C A/middle/ submodule add "$pwd/inner" && >> + add_commit_push A/middle/ "adding inner sub" .gitmodules inner && >> + add_commit_push A/ "adding middle sub" .gitmodules middle && >> + >> + git clone outer B && >> + git -C B/ submodule update --init middle && >> + >> + compare_refs_in_dir A HEAD B HEAD && >> + compare_refs_in_dir A/middle HEAD B/middle HEAD && >> + test -f B/file && >> + test -f B/middle/file && >> + ! test -f B/middle/inner/file && > > These days we typically use test_path_exists() (or > test_path_is_file()) and test_path_is_missing() rather than bare > `test`.
ok.
Show 12 quoted lines
>> +test_expect_success 'setup recursive fetch with uninit submodule' ' >> + # does not depend on any previous test setups >> + >> + git init main && >> + git init sub && >> + >> + touch sub/file && > > Unless the timestamp of the file is significant to the test, in which > case `touch` is used, we normally create empty files like this: > > >sub/file &&
ok.
Show 15 quoted lines
> >> +test_expect_success 'recursive fetch with uninit submodule' ' >> + git -C main submodule deinit -f sub && >> + ! git -C main fetch --recurse-submodules |& >> + grep -v -m1 "Fetching submodule sub$" && > > We want the test scripts to be portable, thus avoid Bashisms such as `|&`. > We also avoid placing a Git command upstream in a pipe since doing so > causes the exit code of the Git command to be lost. Instead, we would > normally send the Git output to a file and then send that file to > whatever would be downstream of the Git command in the pipe. So, a > mechanical rewrite of the above (without thinking too hard about it) > might be: > > git -C main fetch --recurse-submodules >out 2>&1 && > ! grep -v -m1 "Fetching submodule sub$" &&
In general I agree, but for this special test case, it's required to have the two commands connected by a pipe, as the grep needs to kill the git call in error case. Otherwise for this regression git would go for an infinite recursion loop.
Of course, we can go for a "git 2>&1 | grep" solution.
Show 10 quoted lines
>> + git -C main submodule status | >> + sed -e "s/^-//" -e "s/ sub$//" >actual && > > Same comment about avoiding Git upstream in a pipe, so perhaps: > > git -C main submodule status >out && > sed -e "s/^-//" -e "s/ sub$//" out >actual && > >> + test_cmp expect actual >> +'
ok.
-- kind regards --peter;