"Li Linchao via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: lilinchao <lilinchao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch add a new option that reject to clone a shallow repository.
A canonical form of our log message starts by explaining the need,
and then presents the solution at the end.
> Clients don't know it's a shallow repository until they download it
> locally, in some scenariors, clients just don't want to clone this kind
"scenarios". "in some scenarios" would have to be clarified a bit
more to justify why it is a good idea to have such a feature.
> of repository, and want to exit the process immediately without creating
> any unnecessary files.
"clients don't know it's a shallow repository until they download"
leading to "so let's reject immediately upon finding out that they
are shallow" does make sense as a flow of thought, though.
> +--no-shallow::
> + Don't clone a shallow source repository. In some scenariors, clients
"scenarios" (no 'r').
> diff --git a/builtin/clone.c b/builtin/clone.c
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
Unwarranted "chmod +x"; accidents do happen, but please be careful
before making what you did public ;-)
> @@ -90,6 +91,7 @@ static struct option builtin_clone_options[] = {
> OPT__VERBOSITY(&option_verbosity),
> OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &option_progress,
> N_("force progress reporting")),
> + OPT_BOOL(0, "no-shallow", &option_no_shallow, N_("don't clone shallow repository")),
> OPT_BOOL('n', "no-checkout", &option_no_checkout,
> N_("don't create a checkout")),
> OPT_BOOL(0, "bare", &option_bare, N_("create a bare repository")),
It is a bad idea to give a name that begins with "no-" to an option
whose default can be tweaked by a configuration variable [*]. If
the configuration is named "rejectshallow", perhaps it is better to
call it "--reject-shallow" instead.
This is because configured default must be overridable from the
command line. I.e. even if you have in your ~/.gitconfig this:
[clone]
rejectshallow = true
you should be able to say "allow it only this time", with
$ git clone --no-reject-shallow http://github.com/git/git/ git
and you do not want to have to say "--no-no-shallow", which sounds
just silly.
Side note. it is a bad idea in general, even if the option
does not have corresponding configuration variable. The
existing "no-checkout" is a historical accident that
happened long time ago and cannot be removed due to
compatibility. Let's not introduce a new option that
follows such a bad pattern.
> @@ -963,6 +968,7 @@ static int path_exists(const char *path)
> int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> {
> int is_bundle = 0, is_local;
> + int is_shallow = 0;
> const char *repo_name, *repo, *work_tree, *git_dir;
> char *path, *dir, *display_repo = NULL;
> int dest_exists, real_dest_exists = 0;
> @@ -1215,6 +1221,7 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> if (filter_options.choice)
> warning(_("--filter is ignored in local clones; use file:// instead."));
> if (!access(mkpath("%s/shallow", path), F_OK)) {
> + is_shallow = 1;
> if (option_local > 0)
> warning(_("source repository is shallow, ignoring --local"));
> is_local = 0;
This change is to the local clone codepath. Cloning over the wire
would not go through this part. And throughout the patch, this is
the only place that sets is_shallow to 1.
Also let's note that this is after we called parse_options(), so the
value of option_no_shallow is known at this point.
So, this patch does not even *need* to introduce a new "is_shallow"
variable at all. It only needs to add
if (option_no_shallow)
die(...);
instead of adding "is_shallow = 1" to the above hunk.
I somehow think that this is only half a feature---wouldn't it be
more useful if we also rejected a non-local clone from a shallow
repository?
And for that ...
> diff --git a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
> index 7f082fb23b6a..9d310dbb158a 100755
> --- a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
> +++ b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
> @@ -42,6 +42,13 @@ test_expect_success 'disallows --bare with --separate-git-dir' '
>
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'reject clone shallow repository' '
> + git clone --depth=1 --no-local parent shallow-repo &&
> + test_must_fail git clone --no-shallow shallow-repo out 2>err &&
> + test_i18ngrep -e "source repository is shallow, reject to clone." err
> +
> +'
> +
... in addition to the test for a local clone above, you'd also want
to test a non-local clone, perhaps like so:
test_expect_success 'reject clone shallow repository' '
rm -fr shallow-repo &&
git clone --depth=1 --no-local parent shallow-repo &&
test_must_fail git clone --no-shallow --no-local shallow-repo out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep -e "source repository is shallow, reject to clone." err
'
Ditto for the other test script.
Also, you would want to make sure that the command line overrides
the configured default. I.e.
git -c clone.rejectshallow=false clone --reject-shallow
should refuse to clone from a shallow one, while there should be a
way to countermand a configured "I always refuse to clone from a
shallow repository" with "but let's allow it only this time", i.e.
git -c clone.rejectshallow=true clone --no-reject-shallow
or something along the line.
> diff --git a/t/t5611-clone-config.sh b/t/t5611-clone-config.sh
> index 8e0fd398236b..3aab86ad4def 100755
> --- a/t/t5611-clone-config.sh
> +++ b/t/t5611-clone-config.sh
> @@ -92,6 +92,13 @@ test_expect_success 'clone -c remote.<remote>.fetch=<refspec> --origin=<name>' '
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'clone -c clone.rejectshallow' '
> + rm -rf child &&
> + git clone --depth=1 --no-local . child &&
> + test_must_fail git clone -c clone.rejectshallow child out 2>err &&
This is not quite right, even though it may happen to work. The
"clone.rejectshallow" variable is a configuration about what should
happen when creating a new repository by cloning, so letting "git
clone -c var[=val]" to set the variable _in_ the resulting repository
would not make much sense. Even if the clone succeeded, nobody would
look at that particular configuration variable that is set in the
resulting repository.
I think it would communicate to the readers better what we are
trying to do, if we write
test_must_fail git -c clone.rejectshallow=true clone child out
instead.
Thanks.
