Re: [PATCH] diff: do not reuse_worktree_file for submodules
- From
Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch>
- Date
- Feb 23, 2014, 12:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87bnxyq9n6.fsf@thomasrast.ch>
- In-Reply-To
- <8738jbtmji.fsf@thomasrast.ch>
Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch> writes:
Show 27 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch> writes:
>>
>>> @@ -2845,8 +2845,9 @@ static struct diff_tempfile *prepare_temp_file(const char *name,
>>> remove_tempfile_installed = 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (!one->sha1_valid ||
>>> - reuse_worktree_file(name, one->sha1, 1)) {
>>> + if (!S_ISGITLINK(one->mode) &&
>>> + (!one->sha1_valid ||
>>> + reuse_worktree_file(name, one->sha1, 1))) {
>>
>> I agree with the goal/end result, but I have to wonder if the
>> reuse_worktree_file() be the helper function that ought to
>> encapsulate such a logic?
>>
>> Instead of feeding it an object name and a path, if we passed a
>> diff_filespec to the helper, it would have access to the mode as
>> well. It would result in a more intrusive change, so I'd prefer to
>> see your patch applied first and then build such a refactor on top,
>> perhaps like the attached.
>
> I see that you already queued 721e727, which has the change you
> described plus moving the S_ISGITLINK test into reuse_worktree_file.
> The change looks good to me.I spoke too soon; it breaks the test I wrote to cover this case, for a reason that gives me a headache.
When we hit the conditional
Show 5 quoted lines
>>> - if (!one->sha1_valid ||
>>> - reuse_worktree_file(name, one->sha1, 1)) {
>>> + if (!S_ISGITLINK(one->mode) &&
>>> + (!one->sha1_valid ||
>>> + reuse_worktree_file(name, one->sha1, 1))) {sha1_valid=0 for the submodule on the worktree side of the diff. The reason is that we start out with sha1_valid=0 and sha1=000..000 for the worktree side of all dirty entries, which makes sense at that point. We later set the sha1 by looking inside the submodule in diff_fill_sha1_info(), but we never set sha1_valid. So the above conditional will now trigger on the !one->sha1_valid arm, completely defeating the change to reuse_worktree_file().
We can fix it like below, but it feels a bit wrong to me. Are submodules the only case where it makes sense to set sha1_valid when we fill the sha1?
diff.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git i/diff.c w/diff.c index dabf913..cf7281d 100644 --- i/diff.c +++ w/diff.c @@ -3081,6 +3082,8 @@ static void diff_fill_sha1_info(struct diff_filespec *one) die_errno("stat '%s'", one->path); if (index_path(one->sha1, one->path, &st, 0)) die("cannot hash %s", one->path); + if (S_ISGITLINK(one->mode)) + one->sha1_valid = 1; } } else
-- Thomas Rast tr@thomasrast.ch