On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 02:35:56PM +0000, ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> > > When `--batch` used with `--batch-all-objects`, > with some format atoms like %(objectname), %(rest) > or even no atoms may cause Git exit and report > "object xxx changed type!?". > > E.g. `git cat-file --batch="batman" --batch-all-objects` > > This is because we did not get the object type through > oid_object_info_extended(), it's composed of two > situations: > > 1. Since object_info is empty, skip_object_info is > set to true, We skipped collecting the object type. > > 2. The formatting atom like %(objectname) does not require > oid_object_info_extended() to collect object types. > > The correct way to deal with it is to swap the order > of setting skip_object_info and setting typep. This > will ensure that we must get the type of the object > when using --batch. Thanks, this explanation and the patch make sense, and I'd be happy if we take it as-is. But in the name of GSoC, let me offer a few polishing tips. The commit message hints at the root of the problem, but doesn't say it explicitly. Which is: because setting skip_object_info depends on seeing that the object_info is empty, we can't add items to it after setting that flag. And the code path for --batch does that, hence re-ordering them is the solution. It might also be worth noting that the bug was present from when the skip_object_info code was initially added in 845de33a5b (cat-file: avoid noop calls to sha1_object_info_extended, 2016-05-18). > diff --git a/t/t1006-cat-file.sh b/t/t1006-cat-file.sh > index 5d2dc99b74ad..1502a27142ba 100755 > --- a/t/t1006-cat-file.sh > +++ b/t/t1006-cat-file.sh > @@ -586,4 +586,23 @@ test_expect_success 'cat-file --unordered works' ' > test_cmp expect actual > ' > > +test_expect_success 'cat-file --batch="%(objectname)" with --batch-all-objects will work' ' > + git -C all-two cat-file --batch-all-objects --batch-check="%(objectname)" >objects && > + git -C all-two cat-file --batch="%(objectname)" <objects >expect && > + git -C all-two cat-file --batch-all-objects --batch="%(objectname)" >actual && > + cmp expect actual > +' OK, we're checking the output of --batch-all-objects versus taking the object list from the input. We can depend on the ordering being identical between the two because --batch-all-objects sorts. Good. > +test_expect_success 'cat-file --batch="%(rest)" with --batch-all-objects will work' ' > + git -C all-two cat-file --batch="%(rest)" <objects >expect && > + git -C all-two cat-file --batch-all-objects --batch="%(rest)" >actual && > + cmp expect actual > +' This one is rather curious. It definitely shows the bug, but I can't imagine why %(rest) would be useful with --batch-all-objects, since its purpose is to show the rest of the input line (and there are no input lines!). That might be a problem later if we change the behavior (e.g., to say "%(rest) does not make sense with --batch-all-objects"). But I'm also OK leaving it for now; somebody later can dig up this commit via git-blame. > +test_expect_success 'cat-file --batch="batman" with --batch-all-objects will work' ' > + git -C all-two cat-file --batch="batman" <objects >expect && > + git -C all-two cat-file --batch-all-objects --batch="batman" >actual && > + cmp expect actual > +' And this one is a more extreme version of the "%(objectname)" one. It's useful as a regression test because we might later change the optimization so that %(objectname) ends up filling in the other object info. There's a subtle dependency here on the "objects" file from the earlier test. In such a case, we'll often split that out as a separate setup step like: test_expect_success 'set up object list for --batch-all-objects tests' ' git -C all-two cat-file --batch-all-objects --batch-check="%(objectname)" >objects ' That makes it more clear that all three of the other tests are doing the same thing (just with different formats), and can be reordered, removed, etc, later if we wanted to. So not a correctness thing, but rather just communicating the structure of the tests to later readers. -Peff
