Re: [RFC v3] cat-file: add a --stdin-cmd mode

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2022, 09:39 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD3sHvA3Gx9+d=VjQ11sEqWF47AEeo-m4bGsVO3OUJ4dLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220128183319.43496-1-johncai86@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:34 PM John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> This RFC patch proposes a new flag --batch-command that works with
> git-cat-file --batch.

The subject is "Re: [RFC v3] cat-file: add a --stdin-cmd mode" and now you are talking about '--batch-command' instead of '--stdin-cmd'.

"that works with git-cat-file --batch" is not very clear. Maybe you could find a wording that explains better how --batch-command is different from --batch.

Also I think at this point this should probably not be an RFC patch anymore but a regular one.

Show 6 quoted lines

> Similar to git-update-ref --stdin, it will accept
> commands and arguments from stdin.
>
> The start of this idea was discussed in [1], where the original
> motivation was to be able to control when the buffer was flushed to
> stdout in --buffer mode.

That would be nice in a cover letter but I am not sure a commit message is the right place for this.

Show 6 quoted lines

> However, this can actually be much more useful in situations when
> git-cat-file --batch is being used as a long lived backend query
> process. At GitLab, we use a pair of cat-file processes. One for
> iterating over object metadata with --batch-check, and the other to grab
> object contents with --batch. However, if we had --batch-command, we could
> get rid of the second --batch-check process,

Maybe s/second// would make it clear that there are no two --batch-command processes.

> and just have one process
> where we can flip between getting object info, and getting object contents.
> This can lead to huge savings since on a given server there could be hundreds to
> thousands of git cat-file processes at a time.

It's not clear if all the git cat-file processes you are talking about are mostly --batch-check processes or --batch processes, or a roughly equal amount of both. My guess is the latter and that --batch-command would mean that there would be around two times fewer cat-file processes.

> git cat-file --batch-command
>
> $ <command> [arg1] [arg2] NL

It's a bit unclear what the 2 above lines mean. Maybe you could add a small explanation like for example "The new flag can be used like this:" and "It receives commands from stdin in the format:"

Also not sure why there is a '$' char in front of '<command> [arg1] [arg2] NL' but not in front of 'git cat-file --batch-command'. It doesn't look like in the 'git update-ref --stdin' doc that '$' are used in front of the commands that can be passed through stdin.

> This patch adds three commands: object, info, fflush

Maybe s/three commands/the following first three commands/

> $ object <sha1> NL
> $ info <sha1> NL
> $ fflush NL

Idem about '$'.

> These three would be immediately useful in GitLab's context, but one can
> imagine this mode to be further extended for other things.

Not very clear which "mode" you are talking about. You have been talking about a mode only in the subject so far. Maybe you should talk a bit about that above when '<command> [arg1] [arg2] NL' is introduced.

Also you don't talk about the output format. --batch and --batch-check accept [=<format>], but it looks like --batch-command doesn't.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Future improvements:
> - a non-trivial part of "cat-file --batch" time is spent
> on parsing its argument and seeing if it's a revision, ref etc. So we
> could add a command that only accepts a full-length 40
> character SHA-1.

In a cover letter that would be ok, but I am not sure that a commit message is the best place for this kind of details about future work.

Show 45 quoted lines

> This would be the first step in adding such an interface to
> git-cat-file.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1124.git.git.1636149400.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
>
> Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Taylor, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this proposal since you helped
> review the previous patch that turned into this RFC. Thanks!
>
> Changes from v2:
>
> - refactored tests to be within run_tests()
> - added a test to test --buffer behavior with fflush
> - cleaned up cat-file.c: clarified var names, removed unnecessary code
>   based on suggestions from Phillip Wood
> - removed strvec changes
>
> Changes from v1:
>
> - changed option name to batch-command.
> - changed command function interface to receive the whole line after the command
>   name to put the onus of parsing arguments to each individual command function.
> - pass in whole line to batch_one_object in both parse_cmd_object and
>   parse_cmd_info to support spaces in the object reference.
> - removed addition of -z to include in a separate patch series
> - added documentation.
> ---
>  Documentation/git-cat-file.txt |  15 +++++
>  builtin/cat-file.c             | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  t/t1006-cat-file.sh            |  83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt b/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt
> index bef76f4dd0..254e546c79 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt
> @@ -96,6 +96,21 @@ OPTIONS
>         need to specify the path, separated by whitespace.  See the
>         section `BATCH OUTPUT` below for details.
>
> +--batch-command::
> +       Enter a command mode that reads from stdin.

Maybe s/a command mode that reads from stdin/a mode that reads commands from stdin/

Also I would expect something about the output, like perhaps "...and ouputs the command results to stdout".

> May not be combined with any
> +       other options or arguments except `--textconv` or `--filters`, in which
> +       case the input lines also need to specify the path, separated by
> +       whitespace.  See the section `BATCH OUTPUT` below for details.

The BATCH OUTPUT section says that a format can be passed but that doesn't seem to be the case with --batch-command. So you might need to make some changes to that section too or add a bit more details about the output here.

Show 25 quoted lines

> +object <object>::
> +       Print object contents for object reference <object>
> +
> +info <object>::
> +       Print object info for object reference <object>
> +
> +flush::
> +       Flush to stdout immediately when used with --buffer
> +
>  --batch-all-objects::
>         Instead of reading a list of objects on stdin, perform the
>         requested batch operation on all objects in the repository and
> diff --git a/builtin/cat-file.c b/builtin/cat-file.c
> index 7b3f42950e..cc9e47943b 100644
> --- a/builtin/cat-file.c
> +++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
> @@ -24,9 +24,11 @@ struct batch_options {
>         int buffer_output;
>         int all_objects;
>         int unordered;
> -       int cmdmode; /* may be 'w' or 'c' for --filters or --textconv */
> +       int mode; /* may be 'w' or 'c' for --filters or --textconv */
>         const char *format;
> +       int command;
>  };

Maybe add a blank line here.

Show 10 quoted lines

> +static char line_termination = '\n';
>
>  static const char *force_path;
>
> @@ -302,19 +304,19 @@ static void print_object_or_die(struct batch_options *opt, struct expand_data *d
>         if (data->type == OBJ_BLOB) {
>                 if (opt->buffer_output)
>                         fflush(stdout);
> -               if (opt->cmdmode) {
> +               if (opt->mode) {

The mechanical s/cmdmode/mode/g change could have been made in a preparatory patch to make this patch a bit smaller and easier to digest.

Show 36 quoted lines

> +static void batch_objects_command(struct batch_options *opt,
> +                                   struct strbuf *output,
> +                                   struct expand_data *data)
> +{
> +       struct strbuf input = STRBUF_INIT;
> +
> +       /* Read each line dispatch its command */
> +       while (!strbuf_getwholeline(&input, stdin, line_termination)) {
> +               int i;
> +               const struct parse_cmd *cmd = NULL;
> +               const char *p, *cmd_end;
> +
> +               if (*input.buf == line_termination)
> +                       die("empty command in input");
> +               else if (isspace(*input.buf))
> +                       die("whitespace before command: %s", input.buf);
> +
> +               for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(commands); i++) {
> +                       const char *prefix = commands[i].prefix;
> +                       char c;
> +                       if (!skip_prefix(input.buf, prefix, &cmd_end))
> +                               continue;
> +                       /*
> +                        * If the command has arguments, verify that it's
> +                        * followed by a space. Otherwise, it shall be followed
> +                        * by a line terminator.
> +                        */
> +                       c = commands[i].takes_args ? ' ' : line_termination;
> +                       if (input.buf[strlen(prefix)] != c)
> +                               die("arguments invalid for command: %s", commands[i].prefix);
> +
> +                       cmd = &commands[i];
> +                       if (cmd->takes_args) {
> +                               p = cmd_end + 1;
> +                               // strip newline before handing it to the
> +                               // handling function

So above the /* */ comments delimiters are used but here // is used. I am not sure we support // these days, but if we do, I think it would be better to avoid mixing comment styles in the same function.

Show 13 quoted lines

> +                               input.buf[strcspn(input.buf, "\n")] = '\0';
> +                       }
> +
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +
> +               if (!cmd)
> +                       die("unknown command: %s", input.buf);
> +
> +               cmd->fn(opt, p, output, data);
> +       }
> +       strbuf_release(&input);
> +}

Show 8 quoted lines

> @@ -590,6 +682,9 @@ static int batch_objects(struct batch_options *opt)
>         save_warning = warn_on_object_refname_ambiguity;
>         warn_on_object_refname_ambiguity = 0;
>
> +       if (command)
> +               batch_objects_command(opt, &output, &data);
> +
>         while (strbuf_getline(&input, stdin) != EOF) {

I think batch_objects_command() will consume everything from stdin, so it doesn't make sense to try to read again from stdin after it. Maybe the whole while (...) { ... } clause should be inside an else clause or something.

Show 10 quoted lines

>                 if (data.split_on_whitespace) {
>                         /*
> @@ -636,6 +731,7 @@ static int batch_option_callback(const struct option *opt,
>
>         bo->enabled = 1;
>         bo->print_contents = !strcmp(opt->long_name, "batch");
> +       bo->command = !strcmp(opt->long_name, "batch-command");
>         bo->format = arg;
>
>         return 0;