Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 887952b8c6 ("fetch: optionally allow disabling FETCH_HEAD update",
> 2020-08-18) introduced the ability to disable writing to FETCH_HEAD
> during fetch, but did not suppress the "<source> -> FETCH_HEAD" message
> when this ability is used. This message is misleading in this case,
> because FETCH_HEAD is not written.
Thanks for noticing, but I wonder if we should keep this for users
of dry-run, which tends to give more output to what _would_ have
been done if it were not dry-run?
> This might be important for Stolee's maintenance prefetch patch [1] too
> - presumably we don't want to show FETCH_HEAD there, as it would be
> misleading and would clutter in the same way (albeit to a lesser
> extent).
Yes, that makes sense.
> Also, because "fetch" is used to
> lazy-fetch missing objects in a partial clone, this significantly
> clutters up the output in that case since the objects to be fetched are
> potentially numerous. Therefore, suppress this message when
> --no-write-fetch-head is passed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This is on origin/jt/lazy-fetch.
I think this patch, with possible correction for "we are not writing
FETCH_HEAD but we do want to show what would have been done when the
user asked --dry-run", should be done as a brown-paper-bag bugfix
directly on jc/no-update-fetch-head topic and merged quicly down to
'master', instead of taken hostage of some other topic in flight,
but it would soon already be a week since jt/lazy-fetch was merged
to 'next', so it probably is OK to apply on jt/lazy-fetch, and it
indeed is easier to manage that way.
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/da64c51a8182ec13aeed8f0157079fb29a09ee85.1598380599.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/
> ---
> builtin/fetch.c | 3 ++-
> t/t0410-partial-clone.sh | 7 +++++--
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c
> index 320ba9471d..442df05f5a 100644
> --- a/builtin/fetch.c
> +++ b/builtin/fetch.c
> @@ -1023,11 +1023,12 @@ static int store_updated_refs(const char *raw_url, const char *remote_name,
> rc |= update_local_ref(ref, what, rm, ¬e,
> summary_width);
> free(ref);
> - } else
> + } else if (write_fetch_head) {
> format_display(¬e, '*',
> *kind ? kind : "branch", NULL,
> *what ? what : "HEAD",
> "FETCH_HEAD", summary_width);
> + }
> if (note.len) {
> if (verbosity >= 0 && !shown_url) {
> fprintf(stderr, _("From %.*s\n"),
> diff --git a/t/t0410-partial-clone.sh b/t/t0410-partial-clone.sh
> index d681e90640..584a039b85 100755
> --- a/t/t0410-partial-clone.sh
> +++ b/t/t0410-partial-clone.sh
> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ test_expect_success 'missing CLI object, but promised, passes fsck' '
> '
>
> test_expect_success 'fetching of missing objects' '
> - rm -rf repo &&
> + rm -rf repo err &&
> test_create_repo server &&
> test_commit -C server foo &&
> git -C server repack -a -d --write-bitmap-index &&
> @@ -194,7 +194,10 @@ test_expect_success 'fetching of missing objects' '
>
> git -C repo config core.repositoryformatversion 1 &&
> git -C repo config extensions.partialclone "origin" &&
> - git -C repo cat-file -p "$HASH" &&
> + git -C repo cat-file -p "$HASH" 2>err &&
> +
> + # Ensure that no spurious FETCH_HEAD messages are written
> + ! grep FETCH_HEAD err &&
Test also --dry-run, but that perhaps needs to be done outside the
context of partial-clone. The above "lazy fetching should be silent
and should not bother users with mention of FETCH_HEAD" is good test
in the context of partial-clone, though.
jc/no-update-fetch-head added its own test to t/t5510, and both the
"output lacks FETCH_HEAD when --no-write-fetch-head is given" test
and the "output still mentions FETCH_HEAD with --dry-run" test
belong there.
Thanks.
