On Mon, Mar 07 2022, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Since 'git bundle' uses setup_revisions() to specify the object walk,
> some options do not make sense to include during the pack-objects child
> process. Further, these options are used for a call to
> traverse_commit_list() which would then require a callback which is
> currently NULL.
>
> By populating the callback we prevent a segfault in the case of adding
> the --objects flag. This is really a redundant statement because the
> command is constructing a pack-file containing all objects in the
> discovered commit range.
>
> Adding --objects to a 'git bundle' command might cause a slower command,
> but at least it will not have a hard failure when the user supplies this
> option. We can also disable walking trees and blobs in advance of this
> walk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> bundle.c | 10 +++++++++-
> t/t6020-bundle-misc.sh | 12 ++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
> index a0bb687b0f4..dc56db9a50a 100644
> --- a/bundle.c
> +++ b/bundle.c
> @@ -451,6 +451,12 @@ struct bundle_prerequisites_info {
> int fd;
> };
>
> +
> +static void ignore_object(struct object *obj, const char *v, void *data)
> +{
> + /* Do nothing. */
> +}
> +
> static void write_bundle_prerequisites(struct commit *commit, void *data)
> {
> struct bundle_prerequisites_info *bpi = data;
> @@ -544,7 +550,9 @@ int create_bundle(struct repository *r, const char *path,
> die("revision walk setup failed");
> bpi.fd = bundle_fd;
> bpi.pending = &revs_copy.pending;
> - traverse_commit_list(&revs, write_bundle_prerequisites, NULL, &bpi);
> +
> + revs.blob_objects = revs.tree_objects = 0;
> + traverse_commit_list(&revs, write_bundle_prerequisites, ignore_object, &bpi);
> object_array_remove_duplicates(&revs_copy.pending);
>
> /* write bundle refs */
> diff --git a/t/t6020-bundle-misc.sh b/t/t6020-bundle-misc.sh
> index b13e8a52a93..6522401617d 100755
> --- a/t/t6020-bundle-misc.sh
> +++ b/t/t6020-bundle-misc.sh
> @@ -475,4 +475,16 @@ test_expect_success 'clone from bundle' '
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'unfiltered bundle with --objects' '
> + git bundle create all-objects.bdl \
> + --all --objects &&
> + git bundle create all.bdl \
> + --all &&
> +
> + # Compare the headers of these files.
> + head -11 all.bdl >expect &&
> + head -11 all-objects.bdl >actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> test_done
Re this comment on v1: https://lore.kernel.org/git/220307.86fsntzsda.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
This series also passes your tests with this on top:
diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
index 3846108f7a6..1f022f53336 100644
--- a/bundle.c
+++ b/bundle.c
@@ -468,11 +468,6 @@ struct bundle_prerequisites_info {
};
-static void ignore_object(struct object *obj, const char *v, void *data)
-{
- /* Do nothing. */
-}
-
static void write_bundle_prerequisites(struct commit *commit, void *data)
{
struct bundle_prerequisites_info *bpi = data;
@@ -598,7 +593,7 @@ int create_bundle(struct repository *r, const char *path,
*/
revs.filter = NULL;
revs.blob_objects = revs.tree_objects = 0;
- traverse_commit_list(&revs, write_bundle_prerequisites, ignore_object, &bpi);
+ traverse_commit_list(&revs, write_bundle_prerequisites, NULL, &bpi);
object_array_remove_duplicates(&revs_copy.pending);
/* write bundle refs */
diff --git a/list-objects.c b/list-objects.c
index 9422625b39e..d44a1db2262 100644
--- a/list-objects.c
+++ b/list-objects.c
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static void process_tag(struct traversal_context *ctx,
ctx->filter);
if (r & LOFR_MARK_SEEN)
tag->object.flags |= SEEN;
- if (r & LOFR_DO_SHOW)
+ if (r & LOFR_DO_SHOW && ctx->show_object)
ctx->show_object(&tag->object, name, ctx->show_data);
}
Aside from whether that's a good idea, doesn't that at least point to
missing test coverage here, see traverse_non_commits() and other paths
in list-objects.c that'll call ctx->show_object().
I think an actually sensible patch for this is the below, i.e. the API
is conflating "do show" with "should we show AND we have a callback?":
diff --git a/bundle.c b/bundle.c
index 3846108f7a6..1f022f53336 100644
--- a/bundle.c
+++ b/bundle.c
@@ -468,11 +468,6 @@ struct bundle_prerequisites_info {
};
-static void ignore_object(struct object *obj, const char *v, void *data)
-{
- /* Do nothing. */
-}
-
static void write_bundle_prerequisites(struct commit *commit, void *data)
{
struct bundle_prerequisites_info *bpi = data;
@@ -598,7 +593,7 @@ int create_bundle(struct repository *r, const char *path,
*/
revs.filter = NULL;
revs.blob_objects = revs.tree_objects = 0;
- traverse_commit_list(&revs, write_bundle_prerequisites, ignore_object, &bpi);
+ traverse_commit_list(&revs, write_bundle_prerequisites, NULL, &bpi);
object_array_remove_duplicates(&revs_copy.pending);
/* write bundle refs */
diff --git a/list-objects.c b/list-objects.c
index 9422625b39e..1725cb252a9 100644
--- a/list-objects.c
+++ b/list-objects.c
@@ -21,6 +21,22 @@ struct traversal_context {
struct filter *filter;
};
+static void show_commit(struct traversal_context *ctx, struct commit *commit,
+ void *data)
+{
+ if (!ctx->show_commit)
+ return;
+ ctx->show_commit(commit, data);
+}
+
+static void show_object(struct traversal_context *ctx, struct object *object,
+ const char *path, void *data)
+{
+ if (!ctx->show_object)
+ return;
+ ctx->show_object(object, path, data);
+}
+
static void process_blob(struct traversal_context *ctx,
struct blob *blob,
struct strbuf *path,
@@ -60,7 +76,7 @@ static void process_blob(struct traversal_context *ctx,
if (r & LOFR_MARK_SEEN)
obj->flags |= SEEN;
if (r & LOFR_DO_SHOW)
- ctx->show_object(obj, path->buf, ctx->show_data);
+ show_object(ctx, obj, path->buf, ctx->show_data);
strbuf_setlen(path, pathlen);
}
@@ -194,7 +210,7 @@ static void process_tree(struct traversal_context *ctx,
if (r & LOFR_MARK_SEEN)
obj->flags |= SEEN;
if (r & LOFR_DO_SHOW)
- ctx->show_object(obj, base->buf, ctx->show_data);
+ show_object(ctx, obj, base->buf, ctx->show_data);
if (base->len)
strbuf_addch(base, '/');
@@ -210,7 +226,7 @@ static void process_tree(struct traversal_context *ctx,
if (r & LOFR_MARK_SEEN)
obj->flags |= SEEN;
if (r & LOFR_DO_SHOW)
- ctx->show_object(obj, base->buf, ctx->show_data);
+ show_object(ctx, obj, base->buf, ctx->show_data);
strbuf_setlen(base, baselen);
free_tree_buffer(tree);
@@ -228,7 +244,7 @@ static void process_tag(struct traversal_context *ctx,
if (r & LOFR_MARK_SEEN)
tag->object.flags |= SEEN;
if (r & LOFR_DO_SHOW)
- ctx->show_object(&tag->object, name, ctx->show_data);
+ show_object(ctx, &tag->object, name, ctx->show_data);
}
static void mark_edge_parents_uninteresting(struct commit *commit,
@@ -402,7 +418,7 @@ static void do_traverse(struct traversal_context *ctx)
if (r & LOFR_MARK_SEEN)
commit->object.flags |= SEEN;
if (r & LOFR_DO_SHOW)
- ctx->show_commit(commit, ctx->show_data);
+ show_commit(ctx, commit, ctx->show_data);
if (ctx->revs->tree_blobs_in_commit_order)
/*
I think that'll do what you want, and also seems to set us up for safer
API use going forward, i.e. we have a couple of NULL-passing callers
already.
