Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Add 'promisor-remote' capability to protocol v2
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 29, 2024, 01:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqy112n7uf.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAP8UFD2pAtX6UPD6FATuepwVk+0wGkmU5rt=nWpWHejeCe_6rg@mail.gmail.com>
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
>> > + git -C server -c repack.writebitmaps=false repack -a -d \ >> > + --filter=blob:limit=5k --filter-to="$(pwd)" && >> >> This --filter-to="$(pwd)" expands to $(TRASH_DIRECTORY), which is >> "..../t/trash-directory.t5710-promisor-remote-capability". I think >> that is the cause for two extra trash files that are _OUTSIDE_ the >> trash directory, which is an absolute no-no for tests to be safely >> runnable. Next to the trash directory, this ends up creating three >> files >> >> trash directory.t5710-...-980d3ff591aae1651cdd52f7dfad4fb6319ee3c2.idx >> trash directory.t5710-...-980d3ff591aae1651cdd52f7dfad4fb6319ee3c2.pack >> trash directory.t5710-...-980d3ff591aae1651cdd52f7dfad4fb6319ee3c2.rev > > Yeah, right. It should be --filter-to="$(pwd)/pack"
It would create "pack-*" next to (not inside) "server", both as immediate children of the "$TRASH_DIRECTORY". I guess it is fine as long as they are not created inside server/objects/ ;-)
Show 25 quoted lines
>> The first failure in leak check seems to be >> >> not ok 5 - fetch with promisor.advertise set to 'false' >> # >> # git -C server config promisor.advertise false && >> # >> # # Clone from server to create a client >> # GIT_NO_LAZY_FETCH=0 git clone -c remote.server2.promisor=true \ >> # -c remote.server2.fetch="+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/server2/*" \ >> # -c remote.server2.url="file://$(pwd)/server2" \ >> # -c promisor.acceptfromserver=All \ >> # --no-local --filter="blob:limit=5k" server client && >> # test_when_finished "rm -rf client" && >> # >> # # Check that the largest object is not missing on the server >> # check_missing_objects server 0 "" && >> # >> # # Reinitialize server so that the largest object is missing again >> # initialize_server >> >> but I didn't dig further. Can you take a look? I'll eject the >> topic from 'seen' in the meantime to unblock the CI. > > No problem with ejecting the topic from 'seen'. I hope to send a new > version with a design doc hopefully next week.
Thanks.