On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Teach pull to optionally update submodules when '--recurse-submodules'
> is provided. This will teach pull to run 'submodule update --rebase'
> when the '--recurse-submodules' and '--rebase' flags are given.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Pull is already a shortcut for running fetch followed by a merge/rebase, so why
> not have it be a shortcut for running 'submodule update --rebase' when the
> recurse flag is given!
I have not thought about the implications of this shortcut, as opposed to
actually implementing it in C (which presumably would contain more checks).
Will do.
>
> builtin/pull.c | 30 ++++++++++++++-
> t/t5572-pull-submodule.sh | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/pull.c b/builtin/pull.c
> index dd1a4a94e..d73d654e6 100644
> --- a/builtin/pull.c
> +++ b/builtin/pull.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ static const char * const pull_usage[] = {
> /* Shared options */
> static int opt_verbosity;
> static char *opt_progress;
> +static int recurse_submodules;
>
> /* Options passed to git-merge or git-rebase */
> static enum rebase_type opt_rebase = -1;
> @@ -532,6 +533,17 @@ static int pull_into_void(const struct object_id *merge_head,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int update_submodules(void)
Maybe s/update_submodules/rebase_submodules/ ?
> +{
> + struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> + cp.git_cmd = 1;
> +
> + argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "submodule", "update", "--recursive", NULL);
> + argv_array_push(&cp.args, "--rebase");
The --rebase could be part of the _pushl ?
Also we could set
no_stdin = 1
we do need stdout/err though.
> +
> + return run_command(&cp);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * Runs git-merge, returning its exit status.
> */
> @@ -816,6 +828,14 @@ int cmd_pull(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> oidclr(&rebase_fork_point);
> }
>
> + if (opt_recurse_submodules &&
> + !strcmp(opt_recurse_submodules, "--recurse-submodules")) {
So this checks if we pass --recurse-submodules to fetch and if it is not
a on-demand/no.
Maybe we'd want to use the same infrastructure as fetch does, such that
parse_fetch_recurse makes the decision. (Then "--recurse-submodules=TrUe"
would work as well, IIUC)
> + recurse_submodules = 1;
> +
> + if (!opt_rebase)
> + die(_("--recurse-submodules is only valid with --rebase"));
I wonder if there are existing users of "git pull --recurse --merge";
as of now this would fetch the submodules (on-demand) and merge
in the local commits of the superprojects. It sounds like a useful workflow
which we'd be blocking here? Maybe just do nothing in case of !opt_rebase,
i.e. make it part of the first condition added in this hunk?
> + ret = run_rebase(&curr_head, merge_heads.oid, &rebase_fork_point);
> +
> + if (!ret && recurse_submodules)
> + ret = update_submodules();
Instead of doing the rebase of submodules here, we may just want to pass
'recurse_submodules' into run_rebase, which can do it, too. (It already has
a 'ret' value, so the main cmd is not as cluttered.
---
Before reviewing the tests, let's step a bit back and talk about the design
and what is useful to the user. From reading the code, we
1) perform a fetch in the superproject
2) rebase the superproject (not rewriting any submodule pointers,
but that may be ok for now)
3) sequentially:
3a) fetch each submodule on demand
3b) run rebase inside of it.
(A) On the sequence:
If in a normal pull --rebase we have a failure, we can fixup the failure
and then continue via "git rebase --continue"; now if we have a failure
in 3), we would need to fixup the submodule ourselves and then as
we lost all progress in the superproject, rerun "pull --rebase --recurse"?
(B)
As discussed offline this produces bad results if we have a non-ff
operation in the superproject, that also has submodule pointer updates.
So additionally we would need to walk the superprojects local commits
and check if any submodule is touched.
>
> +test_expect_success 'pull --recurse-submodule setup' '
> + git init child &&
test_create_repo child
> + (
> + cd child &&
> + echo "bar" >file &&
> + git add file &&
> + git commit -m "initial commit"
test_create_commit -C child
> + ) &&
> + git init parent &&
> + (
> + cd parent &&
> + echo "foo" >file &&
> + git add file &&
> + git commit -m "Initial commit" &&
> + git submodule add ../child sub &&
> + git commit -m "add submodule"
> + ) &&
Same setup comment as for the child
> + git clone --recurse-submodule parent super &&
> + git -C super/sub checkout master
I wonder if we want to keep these two commands in each test
as I noticed some test scripts are horribly messy others have
a pattern to cleanup after themselves:
test_expect_....
test_when_finished "rm -rf super-clone" &&
git clone ... into super-clone
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'pull recursive fails without --rebase' '
> + test_must_fail git -C super pull --recurse-submodules 2>actual &&
> + test_i18ngrep "recurse-submodules is only valid with --rebase" actual
> +'
Side note: another place to add tests could be t5520 or t740*.
> +test_expect_success 'pull rebase recursing fails with conflicts' '
> + git -C super/sub reset --hard HEAD^^ &&
> + git -C super reset --hard HEAD^ &&
> + (
> + cd super/sub &&
> + echo "b" >file &&
> + git add file &&
> + git commit -m "update file"
> + ) &&
> + test_must_fail git -C super pull --rebase --recurse-submodules
As discussed above: We'd also want to have a reasonable state here,
or some advice to the user telling them how to recover. Maybe in a
first approach we can tell them to re-run "submodule update --rebase"
after fixing the conflict?
Thanks,
Stefan