[PATCH] doc: add documentation for git log --no-follow

[PATCH] doc: add documentation for git log --no-follow

[Étienne Servais]

This feature was added by commit
076c98372e (log: add "log.follow" configuration variable, 2015-07-07)
but remained undocumented.

Signed-off-by: Étienne Servais <etienne.servais@voucoux.fr>
---
This is my first patch to git \o/
Sent with thunderbird with help of format-patch'doc (So, it works!).
I've tested the patch and git am works well on maint and next.
I couldn't figure if I shall merge the --no-follow doc with the follow
as is done for --no-decorate and --decorate just after. 
I couldn't think of a proper phrasing so I'll be glad to get suggestion on this.

 Documentation/git-log.txt | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-log.txt b/Documentation/git-log.txt
index bed09bb09e..cc2ad98167 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-log.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-log.txt
@@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ OPTIONS
 	Continue listing the history of a file beyond renames
 	(works only for a single file).
 
+--no-follow::
+	Override the log.follow configuration.
+
 --no-decorate::
 --decorate[=short|full|auto|no]::
 	Print out the ref names of any commits that are shown. If 'short' is
@@ -205,7 +208,8 @@ log.follow::
 	If `true`, `git log` will act as if the `--follow` option was used when
 	a single <path> is given.  This has the same limitations as `--follow`,
 	i.e. it cannot be used to follow multiple files and does not work well
-	on non-linear history.
+	on non-linear history. This setting can be disabled by the `--no-follow`
+	option.
 
 log.showRoot::
 	If `false`, `git log` and related commands will not treat the
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] doc: add documentation for git log --no-follow

[Jeff King]

On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 12:24:31AM +0100, Étienne Servais wrote:

> This feature was added by commit
> 076c98372e (log: add "log.follow" configuration variable, 2015-07-07)
> but remained undocumented.

That commit just touched the code; it was originally added by aebbcf5797
(diff: accept --no-follow option, 2012-09-21). But I think the general
intent of your patch is still valid.

> Signed-off-by: Étienne Servais <etienne.servais@voucoux.fr>
> ---
> This is my first patch to git \o/
> Sent with thunderbird with help of format-patch'doc (So, it works!).

Yeah, everything looks good there (no whitespace damage, etc).

> I couldn't figure if I shall merge the --no-follow doc with the follow
> as is done for --no-decorate and --decorate just after.

I think it would make more sense to just put it with --follow, like:

  [--no-]follow::

which matches how --use-mailmap is defined, for instance.

> @@ -205,7 +208,8 @@ log.follow::
>  	If `true`, `git log` will act as if the `--follow` option was used when
>  	a single <path> is given.  This has the same limitations as `--follow`,
>  	i.e. it cannot be used to follow multiple files and does not work well
> -	on non-linear history.
> +	on non-linear history. This setting can be disabled by the `--no-follow`
> +	option.

I'm on the fence on this hunk. There are a number of config options that
can be canceled or overridden by command-line options. It's a normal
pattern for the "--no" variant to do so. So while it often doesn't hurt
to give a pointer in the right direction, I don't know that we'd want to
start doing so in every such case.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] doc: add documentation for git log --no-follow

[Étienne Servais]

Le 01/02/2020 à 12:16, Jeff King a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 12:24:31AM +0100, Étienne Servais wrote:
> 
>> This feature was added by commit
>> 076c98372e (log: add "log.follow" configuration variable, 2015-07-07)
>> but remained undocumented.
> 
> That commit just touched the code; it was originally added by aebbcf5797
> (diff: accept --no-follow option, 2012-09-21). But I think the general
> intent of your patch is still valid.

Good catch. Corrected in upcoming patch v2

>> I couldn't figure if I shall merge the --no-follow doc with the follow
>> as is done for --no-decorate and --decorate just after.
> 
> I think it would make more sense to just put it with --follow, like:
> 
>   [--no-]follow::
> 
> which matches how --use-mailmap is defined, for instance.

Ok, I've turned it to (inspired by the --[no-]rename-empty doc)

---follow::
-       Continue listing the history of a file beyond renames
+--[no-]follow::
+       Whether to continue listing the history of a file beyond renames
        (works only for a single file).


> 
>> @@ -205,7 +208,8 @@ log.follow::
>>  	If `true`, `git log` will act as if the `--follow` option was used when
>>  	a single <path> is given.  This has the same limitations as `--follow`,
>>  	i.e. it cannot be used to follow multiple files and does not work well
>> -	on non-linear history.
>> +	on non-linear history. This setting can be disabled by the `--no-follow`
>> +	option.
> 
> I'm on the fence on this hunk. There are a number of config options that
> can be canceled or overridden by command-line options. It's a normal
> pattern for the "--no" variant to do so. So while it often doesn't hurt
> to give a pointer in the right direction, I don't know that we'd want to
> start doing so in every such case.

OK. I had just borrowed that sentence from notes.displayRef few lines below.
Some config options doc follow this direction like log.abbrevCommit or log.mailmap.

I'll follow you on this.


-- 
Étienne Servais

[PATCH] index-pack: downgrade twice-resolved REF_DELTA to die()

[Jeff King]

When we're resolving a REF_DELTA, we compare-and-swap its type from
REF_DELTA to whatever real type the base object has, as discussed in
ab791dd138 (index-pack: fix race condition with duplicate bases,
2014-08-29). If the old type wasn't a REF_DELTA, we consider that a
BUG(). But as discussed in that commit, we might see this case whenever
we try to resolve an object twice, which may happen because we have
multiple copies of the base object.

So this isn't a bug at all, but rather a sign that the input pack is
broken. And indeed, this case is triggered already in t5309.5 and
t5309.6, which create packs with delta cycles and duplicate bases. But
we never noticed because those tests are marked expect_failure.

Those tests were added by b2ef3d9ebb (test index-pack on packs with
recoverable delta cycles, 2013-08-23), which was leaving the door open
for cases that we theoretically _could_ handle. And when we see an
already-resolved object like this, in theory we could keep going after
confirming that the previously resolved child->real_type matches
base->obj->real_type. But:

  - enforcing the "only resolve once" rule here saves us from an
    infinite loop in other parts of the code. If we keep going, then the
    delta cycle in t5309.5 causes us to loop infinitely, as
    find_ref_delta_children() doesn't realize which objects have already
    been resolved. So there would be more changes needed to make this
    case work, and in the meantime we'd be worse off.

  - any pack that triggers this is broken anyway. It either has a
    duplicate base object, or it has a cycle which causes us to bring in
    a duplicate via --fix-thin. In either case, we'd end up rejecting
    the pack in write_idx_file(), which also detects duplicates.

So the tests have little value in documenting what we _could_ be doing
(and have been neglected for 6+ years). Let's switch them to confirming
that we handle this case cleanly (and switch out the BUG() for a more
informative die() so that we do so).

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
Noticed while running the tests in an environment that complains about
SIGABRT deaths. Arguably the test suite should be looking for these even
in test_expect_failure, but it would be a little convoluted to do so
(e.g., teaching BUG() to write to a marker file, and then checking the
file). And I think we're better off phrasing things as much as possible
as expect_success anyway.

 builtin/index-pack.c         | 4 +++-
 t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh | 8 ++++----
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin/index-pack.c b/builtin/index-pack.c
index 60a5591039..41a7c11c8e 100644
--- a/builtin/index-pack.c
+++ b/builtin/index-pack.c
@@ -1003,7 +1003,9 @@ static struct base_data *find_unresolved_deltas_1(struct base_data *base,
 
 		if (!compare_and_swap_type(&child->real_type, OBJ_REF_DELTA,
 					   base->obj->real_type))
-			BUG("child->real_type != OBJ_REF_DELTA");
+			die("REF_DELTA at offset %"PRIuMAX" already resolved (duplicate base %s?)",
+			    (uintmax_t)child->idx.offset,
+			    oid_to_hex(&base->obj->idx.oid));
 
 		resolve_delta(child, base, result);
 		if (base->ref_first == base->ref_last && base->ofs_last == -1)
diff --git a/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh b/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh
index 491556dad9..6c209ad45c 100755
--- a/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh
+++ b/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh
@@ -62,13 +62,13 @@ test_expect_success 'index-pack detects REF_DELTA cycles' '
 	test_must_fail git index-pack --fix-thin --stdin <cycle.pack
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'failover to an object in another pack' '
+test_expect_success 'failover to an object in another pack' '
 	clear_packs &&
 	git index-pack --stdin <ab.pack &&
-	git index-pack --stdin --fix-thin <cycle.pack
+	test_must_fail git index-pack --stdin --fix-thin <cycle.pack
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'failover to a duplicate object in the same pack' '
+test_expect_success 'failover to a duplicate object in the same pack' '
 	clear_packs &&
 	{
 		pack_header 3 &&
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ test_expect_failure 'failover to a duplicate object in the same pack' '
 		pack_obj $A
 	} >recoverable.pack &&
 	pack_trailer recoverable.pack &&
-	git index-pack --fix-thin --stdin <recoverable.pack
+	test_must_fail git index-pack --fix-thin --stdin <recoverable.pack
 '
 
 test_done
-- 
2.25.0.541.gdfd61ebb85

Re: [PATCH] index-pack: downgrade twice-resolved REF_DELTA to die()

[Taylor Blau]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 09:40:55AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> When we're resolving a REF_DELTA, we compare-and-swap its type from
> REF_DELTA to whatever real type the base object has, as discussed in
> ab791dd138 (index-pack: fix race condition with duplicate bases,
> 2014-08-29). If the old type wasn't a REF_DELTA, we consider that a
> BUG(). But as discussed in that commit, we might see this case whenever
> we try to resolve an object twice, which may happen because we have
> multiple copies of the base object.
>
> So this isn't a bug at all, but rather a sign that the input pack is
> broken. And indeed, this case is triggered already in t5309.5 and
> t5309.6, which create packs with delta cycles and duplicate bases. But
> we never noticed because those tests are marked expect_failure.
>
> Those tests were added by b2ef3d9ebb (test index-pack on packs with
> recoverable delta cycles, 2013-08-23), which was leaving the door open
> for cases that we theoretically _could_ handle. And when we see an
> already-resolved object like this, in theory we could keep going after
> confirming that the previously resolved child->real_type matches
> base->obj->real_type. But:
>
>   - enforcing the "only resolve once" rule here saves us from an
>     infinite loop in other parts of the code. If we keep going, then the
>     delta cycle in t5309.5 causes us to loop infinitely, as
>     find_ref_delta_children() doesn't realize which objects have already
>     been resolved. So there would be more changes needed to make this
>     case work, and in the meantime we'd be worse off.
>
>   - any pack that triggers this is broken anyway. It either has a
>     duplicate base object, or it has a cycle which causes us to bring in
>     a duplicate via --fix-thin. In either case, we'd end up rejecting
>     the pack in write_idx_file(), which also detects duplicates.
>
> So the tests have little value in documenting what we _could_ be doing
> (and have been neglected for 6+ years). Let's switch them to confirming
> that we handle this case cleanly (and switch out the BUG() for a more
> informative die() so that we do so).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> Noticed while running the tests in an environment that complains about
> SIGABRT deaths. Arguably the test suite should be looking for these even
> in test_expect_failure, but it would be a little convoluted to do so
> (e.g., teaching BUG() to write to a marker file, and then checking the
> file). And I think we're better off phrasing things as much as possible
> as expect_success anyway.
>
>  builtin/index-pack.c         | 4 +++-
>  t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh | 8 ++++----
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/index-pack.c b/builtin/index-pack.c
> index 60a5591039..41a7c11c8e 100644
> --- a/builtin/index-pack.c
> +++ b/builtin/index-pack.c
> @@ -1003,7 +1003,9 @@ static struct base_data *find_unresolved_deltas_1(struct base_data *base,
>
>  		if (!compare_and_swap_type(&child->real_type, OBJ_REF_DELTA,
>  					   base->obj->real_type))
> -			BUG("child->real_type != OBJ_REF_DELTA");
> +			die("REF_DELTA at offset %"PRIuMAX" already resolved (duplicate base %s?)",
> +			    (uintmax_t)child->idx.offset,
> +			    oid_to_hex(&base->obj->idx.oid));

This error message is informative, and matches what you described in the
patch message.

>  		resolve_delta(child, base, result);
>  		if (base->ref_first == base->ref_last && base->ofs_last == -1)
> diff --git a/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh b/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh
> index 491556dad9..6c209ad45c 100755
> --- a/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh
> +++ b/t/t5309-pack-delta-cycles.sh
> @@ -62,13 +62,13 @@ test_expect_success 'index-pack detects REF_DELTA cycles' '
>  	test_must_fail git index-pack --fix-thin --stdin <cycle.pack
>  '
>
> -test_expect_failure 'failover to an object in another pack' '
> +test_expect_success 'failover to an object in another pack' '
>  	clear_packs &&
>  	git index-pack --stdin <ab.pack &&
> -	git index-pack --stdin --fix-thin <cycle.pack
> +	test_must_fail git index-pack --stdin --fix-thin <cycle.pack
>  '
>
> -test_expect_failure 'failover to a duplicate object in the same pack' '
> +test_expect_success 'failover to a duplicate object in the same pack' '
>  	clear_packs &&
>  	{
>  		pack_header 3 &&
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ test_expect_failure 'failover to a duplicate object in the same pack' '
>  		pack_obj $A
>  	} >recoverable.pack &&
>  	pack_trailer recoverable.pack &&
> -	git index-pack --fix-thin --stdin <recoverable.pack
> +	test_must_fail git index-pack --fix-thin --stdin <recoverable.pack
>  '

And these hunks all make sense, too.

>  test_done
> --
> 2.25.0.541.gdfd61ebb85

This looks great, thanks :-)

  Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>

Thanks,
Taylor