Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In 9830926c7d (rev-list: add commit object support in `--missing`
> option, 2023-10-27) we fixed the `--missing` option in `git rev-list`
> so that it works with with missing commits, not just blobs/trees.
>
> Unfortunately, such a command would still fail with a "fatal: bad
> object <oid>" if it is passed a missing commit, blob or tree as an
> argument (before the rev walking even begins).
>
> When such a command is used to find the dependencies of some objects,
> for example the dependencies of quarantined objects (see the
> "QUARANTINE ENVIRONMENT" section in the git-receive-pack(1)
> documentation), it would be better if the command would instead
> consider such missing objects, especially commits, in the same way as
> other missing objects.
Looks good.
> If, for example `--missing=print` is used, it would be nice for some
> use cases if the missing tips passed as arguments were reported in
> the same way as other missing objects instead of the command just
> failing.
Nit: this paragraph sounds a bit redundant but it is giving an explicit
example of `--missing=print` which was not discussed so far, so I think
it's fine as is.
> We could introduce a new option to make it work like this, but most
> users are likely to prefer the command to have this behavior as the
> default one. Introducing a new option would require another dumb loop
> to look for that options early, which isn't nice.
s/options/option
> Also we made `git rev-list` work with missing commits very recently
> and the command is most often passed commits as arguments. So let's
> consider this as a bug fix related to these previous change.
s/previous change/recent changes
> While at it let's add a NEEDSWORK comment to say that we should get
> rid of the existing ugly dumb loops that parse the
> `--exclude-promisor-objects` and `--missing=...` options early.
>
> Helped-by: Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 4 +++
> builtin/rev-list.c | 15 +++++++-
> revision.c | 14 ++++++--
> t/t6022-rev-list-missing.sh | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> index a583b52c61..bb753b6292 100644
> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> @@ -1019,6 +1019,10 @@ Unexpected missing objects will raise an error.
> +
> The form '--missing=print' is like 'allow-any', but will also print a
> list of the missing objects. Object IDs are prefixed with a ``?'' character.
> ++
> +If some tips passed to the traversal are missing, they will be
> +considered as missing too, and the traversal will ignore them. In case
> +we cannot get their Object ID though, an error will be raised.
The only other mention of the term "tips" is for the "--alternate-refs"
flag on line 215 which uses "ref tips". Perhaps this is obvious to
veteran Git developers but I do wonder if we need to somehow define it
(however briefly) the first time we mention it (either in the document
as a whole, or just within this newly added paragraph).
Here's an alternate wording
Ref tips given on the command line are a special case. They are
first dereferenced to Object IDs (if this is not possible, an error
will be raised). Then these IDs are checked to see if the objects
they refer to exist. If so, the traversal happens starting with
these tips. Otherwise, then such tips will not be used for
traversal.
Even though such missing tips won't be included for traversal, for
purposes of the `--missing` flag they will be treated the same way
as those objects that did get traversed (and were determined to be
missing). For example, if `--missing=print` is given then the Object
IDs of these tips will be printed just like all other missing
objects encountered during traversal.
But also, I realize that these documentation touch-ups might be better
served by an overall pass over the whole document, so it's fine if we
decide not to take this suggestion at this time.
Aside: unfortunately we don't seem to define the relationship between
ref tips (e.g., "HEAD"), object IDs (40-char hex string), and the actual
objects (the real data that we traverse over). It's probably another
thing that could be fixed up in the docs in the future.
> --exclude-promisor-objects::
> (For internal use only.) Prefilter object traversal at
> diff --git a/builtin/rev-list.c b/builtin/rev-list.c
> index b3f4783858..ec9556f135 100644
> --- a/builtin/rev-list.c
> +++ b/builtin/rev-list.c
> @@ -545,6 +545,15 @@ int cmd_rev_list(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> *
> * Let "--missing" to conditionally set fetch_if_missing.
> */
> + /*
> + * NEEDSWORK: These dump loops to look for some options early
> + * are ugly.
I agree with Junio's suggestion to use more objective language.
> We really need setup_revisions() to have a
> + * mechanism to allow and disallow some sets of options for
> + * different commands (like rev-list, replay, etc). Such
s/Such/Such a
> + * mechanism should do an early parsing of option and be able
s/option/options
> + * to manage the `--exclude-promisor-objects` and `--missing=...`
> + * options below.
> + */
> for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
> const char *arg = argv[i];
> if (!strcmp(arg, "--exclude-promisor-objects")) {
>
> [...]
>
> @@ -2178,13 +2183,18 @@ static int handle_revision_arg_1(const char *arg_, struct rev_info *revs, int fl
> if (revarg_opt & REVARG_COMMITTISH)
> get_sha1_flags |= GET_OID_COMMITTISH;
>
> + /*
> + * Even if revs->do_not_die_on_missing_objects is set, we
> + * should error out if we can't even get an oid, ...
> + */
Perhaps this wording is more precise?
If we can't even get an oid, we are forced to error out (regardless
of revs->do_not_die_on_missing_objects) because a valid traversal
must start from *some* valid oid. OTOH we ignore the ref tip
altogether with revs->ignore_missing.
> + * ... as
> + * `--missing=print` should be able to report missing oids.
I think this comment would be better placed ...
> if (get_oid_with_context(revs->repo, arg, get_sha1_flags, &oid, &oc))
> return revs->ignore_missing ? 0 : -1;
> if (!cant_be_filename)
> verify_non_filename(revs->prefix, arg);
> object = get_reference(revs, arg, &oid, flags ^ local_flags);
... around here.
> if (!object)
> - return revs->ignore_missing ? 0 : -1;
> + return (revs->ignore_missing || revs->do_not_die_on_missing_objects) ? 0 : -1;
> add_rev_cmdline(revs, object, arg_, REV_CMD_REV, flags ^ local_flags);
> add_pending_object_with_path(revs, object, arg, oc.mode, oc.path);
> free(oc.path);
> @@ -3830,8 +3840,6 @@ int prepare_revision_walk(struct rev_info *revs)
> FOR_EACH_OBJECT_PROMISOR_ONLY);
> }
>
> - oidset_init(&revs->missing_commits, 0);
> -
> if (!revs->reflog_info)
> prepare_to_use_bloom_filter(revs);
> if (!revs->unsorted_input)
> diff --git a/t/t6022-rev-list-missing.sh b/t/t6022-rev-list-missing.sh
> index 5f1be7abb5..78387eebb3 100755
> --- a/t/t6022-rev-list-missing.sh
> +++ b/t/t6022-rev-list-missing.sh
> @@ -78,4 +78,60 @@ do
> done
> done
>
> +for missing_tip in "HEAD~1" "HEAD~1^{tree}" "HEAD:1.t"
> +do
> + # We want to check that things work when both
> + # - all the tips passed are missing (case existing_tip = ""), and
> + # - there is one missing tip and one existing tip (case existing_tip = "HEAD")
> + for existing_tip in "" "HEAD"
> + do
Though I am biased, these new variable names do make this test that much
easier to read. Thanks.
