| Message ID | Z3qOM5M1ioZ0Px4T@ArchLinux (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | add more ref consistency checks | expand |
shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> writes: > builtin/fsck.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/builtin/fsck.c b/builtin/fsck.c > index 0196c54eb6..a10e52b601 100644 > --- a/builtin/fsck.c > +++ b/builtin/fsck.c > @@ -902,6 +902,32 @@ static int check_pack_rev_indexes(struct repository *r, int show_progress) > return res; > } > > +static void fsck_refs(void) > +{ > + struct child_process refs_verify = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT; > + struct progress *progress = NULL; > + > + if (show_progress) > + progress = start_progress(_("Checking ref database"), 1); This had an obvious semantic conflicts with a topic in flight. I've resolved it in the latest integration after pushing out the 2.48-rc2 this morning, so there is no need to resend, but please remember that it would be a possibility to rebase on top of an updated 'master' *IF* the other topic graduates to 'master' a lot earlier than this topic hits 'next' (IOW, until that happens there is no need to rebase). Thanks.
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 02:16:22PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> writes: > > > builtin/fsck.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/builtin/fsck.c b/builtin/fsck.c > > index 0196c54eb6..a10e52b601 100644 > > --- a/builtin/fsck.c > > +++ b/builtin/fsck.c > > @@ -902,6 +902,32 @@ static int check_pack_rev_indexes(struct repository *r, int show_progress) > > return res; > > } > > > > +static void fsck_refs(void) > > +{ > > + struct child_process refs_verify = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT; > > + struct progress *progress = NULL; > > + > > + if (show_progress) > > + progress = start_progress(_("Checking ref database"), 1); > > This had an obvious semantic conflicts with a topic in flight. > > I've resolved it in the latest integration after pushing out the > 2.48-rc2 this morning, so there is no need to resend, but please > remember that it would be a possibility to rebase on top of an > updated 'master' *IF* the other topic graduates to 'master' a lot > earlier than this topic hits 'next' (IOW, until that happens there > is no need to rebase). > Thanks for the careful notification. I'll watch this. > Thanks. Thanks.
shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> writes: >> I've resolved it in the latest integration after pushing out the >> 2.48-rc2 this morning, so there is no need to resend, but please >> remember that it would be a possibility to rebase on top of an >> updated 'master' *IF* the other topic graduates to 'master' a lot >> earlier than this topic hits 'next' (IOW, until that happens there >> is no need to rebase). >> > > Thanks for the careful notification. I'll watch this. For future reference and to help those who may be reading from the sidelines, it is a good practice to see how your topic interacts with other things in flight by making a trial merge to 'next' and to 'seen'. It would give you an opportunity to learn about what other people are actively doing in the project. Thanks.
diff --git a/builtin/fsck.c b/builtin/fsck.c index 0196c54eb6..a10e52b601 100644 --- a/builtin/fsck.c +++ b/builtin/fsck.c @@ -902,6 +902,32 @@ static int check_pack_rev_indexes(struct repository *r, int show_progress) return res; } +static void fsck_refs(void) +{ + struct child_process refs_verify = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT; + struct progress *progress = NULL; + + if (show_progress) + progress = start_progress(_("Checking ref database"), 1); + + if (verbose) + fprintf_ln(stderr, _("Checking ref database")); + + child_process_init(&refs_verify); + refs_verify.git_cmd = 1; + strvec_pushl(&refs_verify.args, "refs", "verify", NULL); + if (verbose) + strvec_push(&refs_verify.args, "--verbose"); + if (check_strict) + strvec_push(&refs_verify.args, "--strict"); + + if (run_command(&refs_verify)) + errors_found |= ERROR_REFS; + + display_progress(progress, 1); + stop_progress(&progress); +} + static char const * const fsck_usage[] = { N_("git fsck [--tags] [--root] [--unreachable] [--cache] [--no-reflogs]\n" " [--[no-]full] [--strict] [--verbose] [--lost-found]\n" @@ -967,6 +993,8 @@ int cmd_fsck(int argc, git_config(git_fsck_config, &fsck_obj_options); prepare_repo_settings(the_repository); + fsck_refs(); + if (connectivity_only) { for_each_loose_object(mark_loose_for_connectivity, NULL, 0); for_each_packed_object(the_repository,
At now, we have already implemented the ref consistency checks for both "files-backend" and "packed-backend". Although we would check some redundant things, it won't cause trouble. So, let's integrate it into the "git-fsck(1)" command to get feedback from the users. And also by calling "git refs verify" in "git-fsck(1)", we make sure that the new added checks don't break. Introduce a new function "fsck_refs" that initializes and runs a child process to execute the "git refs verify" command. In order to provide the user interface create a progress which makes the total task be 1. It's hard to know how many loose refs we will check now. We might improve this later. And we run this function in the first execution sequence of "git-fsck(1)" because we don't want the existing code of "git-fsck(1)" which implicitly checks the consistency of refs to die the program. Mentored-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Mentored-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> --- builtin/fsck.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)