From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:17:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5/5] backfill: report total size of missing blobs in --dry-run Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260930-backfill-dryrun-v1-5-1128f247ee01@gmail.com> Pablo Sabater writes: > + > + if (!ctx->object_info_enabled) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if (!ctx->object_info_transport) { > + struct promisor_remote *promise = > + repo_promisor_remote_find(ctx->repo, NULL); > + struct remote *remote = NULL; > + > + if (!promise || !(remote = remote_get(promise->name))) > + die(_("--dry-run requires a promisor remote")); > + > + ctx->object_info_transport = transport_get(remote, NULL); > + > + if (!ctx->object_info_transport->smart_options) > + die(_("failed to get object info: smart options required")); > + } > + > + results->wants_size = 1; > + status = transport_fetch_object_info(ctx->object_info_transport, > + &ctx->current_batch, > + results); > + > + if (status == FETCH_OBJECT_INFO_NOT_ENABLED || > + !results->sizes) { > + ctx->object_info_enabled = 0; Yuck. Because we cannot tell if they allow you to look at the information, this cannot be helped, but it means anybody that looks at this ctx->object_info_enabled member to decide what to do must be careful. Is it guaranteed that results.sizes[] have been populated as long as status is not FETCH_OBJECT_INFO_NOT_ENABLED? Can there be other errors that makes result.sizes[] unusable? If that is the case, then it would be cleaner to have a dedicated ctx->sizes_valid member rather than relying on ctx->object_info_enabled member to carry this information ... > + goto cleanup; > + } > + > + for (size_t i = 0; i < results->nr; i++) > + ctx->total_batch_size += results->sizes[i]; > + > +cleanup: > + free_fetch_object_info_results(&ctx->object_info_results); > oid_array_clear(&ctx->current_batch); > } > > @@ -157,12 +201,25 @@ static int do_backfill(struct backfill_context *ctx) > > dry_run_batch(ctx); > > - printf(Q_("After backfill, %" PRIuMAX " blob would be fetched.\n", > - "After backfill, %" PRIuMAX " blobs would be fetched.\n", > - (unsigned long)ctx->total_batch_nr), > - (uintmax_t)ctx->total_batch_nr); > + if (ctx->object_info_enabled && ctx->total_batch_nr) { ... and use it here. Within the design presented in this series, we know we have asked the other end at this point, and the above function may have turned ctx->object_info member off if the information is not there, so this may be safe. But as I said, I am not sure what happens when fetch-object-info returned other kind of errors.