Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +'git http-fetch' [-c] [-t] [-a] [-d] [-v] [-w filename] [--recover] [--stdin | --packfile | <commit>] <url>
> ...
> +--packfile::
> + Instead of a commit id on the command line (which is not expected in
> + this case), 'git http-fetch' fetches the packfile directly at the given
> + URL and uses index-pack to generate corresponding .idx and .keep files.
> + The output of index-pack is printed to stdout.
This makes sense as an external interface, I guess.
How should this interact with --stdin option, which is more like
"instead of getting a single <dest filename, object name> pair from
the command line, handle many pairs read from the standard input"
batch mode operation. Would it be beneficial to allow unbounded
number of packfiles, not just a single one, to be fetched and
indexed by a single invocation of the command? I suspect that given
the relatively large size of a single request for fetching a
packfile, one invocation of the command per packfile won't be too
heavy an overhead, so lack of such an orthogonality may only hurt
conceptual cleanliness, but not performance. OK.
> - if (argc != arg + 2 - commits_on_stdin)
> + if (argc != arg + 2 - (commits_on_stdin || packfile))
> usage(http_fetch_usage);
> if (commits_on_stdin) {
> commits = walker_targets_stdin(&commit_id, &write_ref);
> + } else if (packfile) {
> + /* URL will be set later */
Prefer to see an empty statement spelled more explicitly, like this:
; /* URL will be set later */
Otherwise reader would be left wondering if a line was (or lines
were) accidentally lost after this comment.
> } else {
> commit_id = (char **) &argv[arg++];
> commits = 1;
> }
>
> + if (packfile) {
> + url = xstrdup(argv[arg]);
> + } else {
> + if (argv[arg])
> + str_end_url_with_slash(argv[arg], &url);
> + }
>
> setup_git_directory();
>
> git_config(git_default_config, NULL);
>
> http_init(NULL, url, 0);
> + if (packfile) {
> + struct http_pack_request *preq;
> + struct slot_results results;
> + int ret;
> +
> + preq = new_http_pack_request(NULL, url);
> + if (preq == NULL)
> + die("couldn't create http pack request");
> + preq->slot->results = &results;
> + preq->generate_keep = 1;
> +
> + if (start_active_slot(preq->slot)) {
> + run_active_slot(preq->slot);
> + if (results.curl_result != CURLE_OK) {
> + die("Unable to get pack file %s\n%s", preq->url,
> + curl_errorstr);
> + }
> + } else {
> + die("Unable to start request");
> + }
> +
> + if ((ret = finish_http_pack_request(preq)))
> + die("finish_http_pack_request gave result %d", ret);
> + release_http_pack_request(preq);
> + rc = 0;
The above probably want to be a single helper function.
The other side of if/else may also become another helper function.
That way, the flow of control would become clearer. After all,
these two branches do not share all that much. Only http-init and
http-cleanup and nothing else.
For that matter, even before introducing this new mode of operation,
another patch to make a preparatory move of the original logic in
this function to a helper function that would be called from the
"else" side may make it easier to see what is going on.
> diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
> index 130e9d6259..ac66215ee6 100644
> --- a/http.c
> +++ b/http.c
> @@ -2280,15 +2280,18 @@ int finish_http_pack_request(struct http_pack_request *preq)
> int tmpfile_fd;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - close_pack_index(p);
> + if (p)
> + close_pack_index(p);
>
> fclose(preq->packfile);
> preq->packfile = NULL;
>
> - lst = preq->lst;
> - while (*lst != p)
> - lst = &((*lst)->next);
> - *lst = (*lst)->next;
> + if (p) {
> + lst = preq->lst;
> + while (*lst != p)
> + lst = &((*lst)->next);
> + *lst = (*lst)->next;
> + }
This is quite ugly. What is the original meaning of the target
field of the pack_request structure again? A packed_git structure
that will be filled when we are done fetching the packfile from the
other side and installed in our repository? When we are (ab)using
http_fetch code to fetch a single packfile, we do not install the
packfile into the running process, because we are only (re)using the
existing machinery as a poor-man's "curl | git index-pack --stdin"?
I do not think it is a bad idea to roll "curl | git index-pack
--stdin" our own, but I do find this an ugly way to do so. Perhaps
a set of lower-level helper functions can be isolated out of the
existing code before this new feature is added, and then a new "just
fetch and pipe it to the index-pack" feature should be written using
these helpers but with a separate set of entry points? Would it be
a good way to make the resulting code cleaner than this patch does?
I dunno.
> diff --git a/http.h b/http.h
> index a5b082f3ae..709dfa4c19 100644
> --- a/http.h
> +++ b/http.h
> @@ -223,12 +223,21 @@ struct http_pack_request {
> struct active_request_slot *slot;
>
> /*
> - * After calling new_http_pack_request(), point lst to the head of the
> + * After calling new_http_pack_request(), if fetching a pack that
> + * http_get_info_packs() told us about, point lst to the head of the
> * pack list that target is in. finish_http_pack_request() will remove
> * target from lst and call install_packed_git() on target.
> */
> struct packed_git **lst;
>
> + /*
> + * If this is true, finish_http_pack_request() will pass "--keep" to
> + * index-pack, resulting in the creation of a keep file, and will not
> + * suppress its stdout (that is, the "keep\t<hash>\n" line will be
> + * printed to stdout).
> + */
> + unsigned generate_keep : 1;
> +
I suspect that this is a sign that this single patch is trying to
do too many things at the same time.
- Whether we are fetching a single packfile from a URL, or walking
to fetch all the packfiles in the repository at a given URL
- Whether packfiles taken from outer space are marked with the
"keep" bit
- Whether the obtained packfile(s) are internally "installed"
to the running process
are conceptually independent choices, but somehow mixed up, it
seems.
Thanks.
