Re: [PATCH] mktree: learn about promised objects

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2022, 05:02 UTC
Message-ID: <Yqq5dLagSfVMzyQH@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa6adzln6.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 02:01:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Richard Oliver <roliver@roku.com> writes:
> 
> > Meanwhile, is it worth considering a '--promised-as-missing' option
> > (or a config option) for invocations such as 'mktree --missing' that
> > prevents promised objects being faulted-in? Currently, the only
> > reliable way that I've found to prevent 'mktree --missing' faulting-in
> > promised objects is to remove the remote. Such an option could either
> > set the global variable 'fetch_if_missing' to '0' or could ensure
> > 'OBJECT_INFO_SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT' is passed appropriately.
> 
> I didn't spend too much time on thinking this one through myself,
> but do we really need a separte option?
> [...]
> We by grave mistake at 31c8221a (mktree: validate entry type in
> input, 2009-05-14) started insisting on inspecting objects even when
> allow-mising was given.  I do not think it was sensible, given why
> we had "--missing" as an option to allow users to say "you do not
> have to be too paranoid".
> 
> The codebase is so distant but I think we should probably do a moral
> revert/reconstruct of that commit so that the extra paranoia of the
> said commit applies only when "--missing" is not in effect, or
> something like that.

FWIW, I had the same reaction. I think fixing "--missing" should be the first step, and would unstick Richard's use case, as I understand it.

There is some value to improving the promisor case, since using "--missing" is a pretty broad stroke (i.e., you'd fail to actual corruption of missing non-promisor objects). That could either be checking the promisor object and type without faulting it in, or just skipping the type-check for objects after confirming that they're promisors.

But that can come on top, I think. The use case there is also a bit narrower. The local repository does not know about all promised objects. It can only see the boundaries of objects it doesn't have (so with --filter=tree:0, for example, a partial clone of a repo with path "a/b/c" would know about "b" but not "c"). So in the most general case you'd still have to resort to "--missing", but I suspect in practice you'd always feed things at that boundary to mktree (otherwise, how would you even know the oid of "c").

-Peff