Hi,
SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> The initial fetch during a clone doesn't transfer refs matching
> additional fetch refspecs given on the command line as configuration
> variables. This contradicts the documentation stating that
> configuration variables specified via 'git clone -c <key>=<value> ...'
> "take effect immediately after the repository is initialized, but
> before the remote history is fetched" and the given example
[...]
> The reason for this is that the initial fetch is not a fully fledged
> 'git fetch' but a bunch of direct calls into the fetch/transport
> machinery with clone's own refs-to-refspec matching logic, which
> bypasses parts of 'git fetch' processing configured fetch refspecs.
Agh, subtle.
I'm hoping that longer term we can make fetch behave more like a
library and make the initial fetch into a fully fledged 'git fetch'
like thing again. But this smaller change is the logical fix in the
meantime.
[...]
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index ad6c5424e..b8fd09dc9 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -626,6 +626,19 @@ struct refspec *parse_fetch_refspec(int nr_refspec, const char **refspec)
> return parse_refspec_internal(nr_refspec, refspec, 1, 0);
> }
>
> +void add_and_parse_fetch_refspec(struct remote *remote, const char *refspec)
> +{
> + struct refspec *rs;
> +
> + add_fetch_refspec(remote, refspec);
> + rs = parse_fetch_refspec(1, &refspec);
> + REALLOC_ARRAY(remote->fetch, remote->fetch_refspec_nr);
> + remote->fetch[remote->fetch_refspec_nr - 1] = *rs;
> +
> + /* Not free_refspecs(), as we copied its pointers above */
> + free(rs);
> +}
> +
> static struct refspec *parse_push_refspec(int nr_refspec, const char **refspec)
> {
> return parse_refspec_internal(nr_refspec, refspec, 0, 0);
> diff --git a/remote.h b/remote.h
> index 924881169..9ad8c1085 100644
> --- a/remote.h
> +++ b/remote.h
> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ struct ref *ref_remove_duplicates(struct ref *ref_map);
>
> int valid_fetch_refspec(const char *refspec);
> struct refspec *parse_fetch_refspec(int nr_refspec, const char **refspec);
> +void add_and_parse_fetch_refspec(struct remote *remote, const char *refspec);
>
> void free_refspec(int nr_refspec, struct refspec *refspec);
I realize its neighbors don't have this, but can this function have a
brief comment explaining how it is meant to be used and what
guarantees it makes?
For example:
/** Adds a refspec to remote->fetch_refspec and remote->fetch. */
void add_and_parse_fetch_refspec(struct remote *remote, const char *refspec);
I'm tempted to say that this one should be named add_fetch_refspec (or
something like remote_add_refspec) --- this is the only way to add a
fetch refspec in the public remote API, and the fact that it parses is
an implementation detail. The private add_fetch_refpsec that builds
the fetch_refspec as preparation for parsing them in a batch is not
part of the exported API.
Also, now that the API is appending to remote->fetch instead of
allocating it in one go, should it use the ALLOC_GROW heuristic /
fetch_refspec_alloc size?
The caller adds one refspec right after calling remote_get. I'm
starting to wonder if this could be done more simply by having a
variant of remote_get that allows naming an additional refspec, so
that remote->fetch could be immutable after construction like it was
before. What do you think?
[...]
> + /* Not free_refspecs(), as we copied its pointers above */
> + free(rs);
Allocating an array to put the parsed refspec in and then freeing it
seems wasteful. Should parse_refspec_internal be changed to take an
output parameter so it can put the refspec into remote->fetch
directly?
[...]
> +++ b/builtin/clone.c
[...]
> @@ -848,16 +853,13 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> const struct ref *our_head_points_at;
> struct ref *mapped_refs;
> const struct ref *ref;
> - struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT, value = STRBUF_INIT;
> + struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT, default_refspec = STRBUF_INIT;
nit: since it's not part of a key, value pair like value,
default_refspec should probably go on its own line.
[...]
> --- a/t/t5611-clone-config.sh
> +++ b/t/t5611-clone-config.sh
> @@ -37,6 +37,50 @@ test_expect_success 'clone -c config is available during clone' '
> test_cmp expect child/file
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'clone -c remote.origin.fetch=<refspec> works' '
> + rm -rf child &&
> + git update-ref refs/grab/it refs/heads/master &&
> + git update-ref refs/leave/out refs/heads/master &&
> + git clone -c "remote.origin.fetch=+refs/grab/*:refs/grab/*" . child &&
> + git -C child for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" >actual &&
> + cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> + refs/grab/it
> + refs/heads/master
> + refs/remotes/origin/HEAD
> + refs/remotes/origin/master
> + EOF
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
Can use <<-\EOF to save the reviewer from having to look for variable
interpolations.
optional nit: might be easier to read with a blank line before the
"cat >expect" line or the for-each-ref line. That way, it's easier to
separate the validation of output from the commands being run at a
glance and see what the test is about.
> +
> +test_expect_success 'git -c remote.origin.fetch=<refspec> clone works' '
> + rm -rf child &&
> + git -c "remote.origin.fetch=+refs/grab/*:refs/grab/*" clone . child &&
> + git -C child for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" >actual &&
> + cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> + refs/grab/it
> + refs/heads/master
> + refs/remotes/origin/HEAD
> + refs/remotes/origin/master
> + EOF
Likewise.
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'clone -c remote.<remote>.fetch=<refspec> --origin=<name>' '
> + rm -rf child &&
> + git clone --origin=upstream \
> + -c "remote.upstream.fetch=+refs/grab/*:refs/grab/*" \
> + -c "remote.origin.fetch=+refs/leave/*:refs/leave/*" \
> + . child &&
> + git -C child for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" >actual &&
> + cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> + refs/grab/it
> + refs/heads/master
> + refs/remotes/upstream/HEAD
> + refs/remotes/upstream/master
> + EOF
Likewise. Nice.
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> # Tests for the hidden file attribute on windows
> is_hidden () {
> # Use the output of `attrib`, ignore the absolute path
The rest looks good. Thanks for a pleasant read.
Sincerely,
Jonathan