From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD141F8C4 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1349622AbiCOUtq (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:49:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39396 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241084AbiCOUtp (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:49:45 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5F01C135 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id t5so868060pfg.4 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:48:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=mTjONuY59Vcp27led4q7qjadIECwovm17kyUVW3/xRQ=; b=iVRLR5dF7IeIkqdbnVF/44DCabvigYDu28RiTuse0N/2vl518+ZnuXR5PNXLE9LtX4 8oPEhcqg/z7UyrMPAvMiERMt4lTFm6lNnHNn7kVWNsqinvOfAKl1tplY2FHCZ6nnU6f/ V6O65mAzydjsMZyKSZTDle0Szllucm4ENybph/0jlxnU57J3+w8MGp48tUu8pW5Y+Bdn JR8iSP+c2elpxlx555lSOKComhDNTQebMHdvyOc0tYWQHPm4HDHjPoyPXq3a6dJgB9vS sSRzcZpVcE+rxpwEf7mi359Sd7bAKQO7U7cLISP1P4r2Po+HXDTSi3EJ2Ez45K2iRQnt oM0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=mTjONuY59Vcp27led4q7qjadIECwovm17kyUVW3/xRQ=; b=IUV07ZOM1wBKwuCREUluScR9Qo3nk1iV8IlYixB3QrsujuRN06ELNJe4n0RZI3ZP4b StvgTjSy3ODqo797fOBHpVw2dy9dvbi0vn4M5lROS1XdTriSGMCaFLDsLevOwCfpAuzq g1WuevXZSooNoLIew4bY8aZnIhf4F77nBv5DQIFvQZbm7hooLz2+Sx77zlblrtV8zPm2 DEefUebau4MmaXY8VnrHWfcSpHomb0hkgiv88/rehe3omIYzy1/EOUo1xpavLcn3PPot hi9vlUqT+qTUK5ROKe04OgV/P7/TNGDjJ0mmTkOS8q5Nv0qsE98KHw3JVweQ9zjepHGU XTnA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DkUJLC0FZQx8dv6E3I5Ne0t4DCahFonopjiO/3brq4vqimEWg DgOVPpmRZ/ekkfmgmbwiZYUBXQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3FhDJ9+wBo66ubTWO202m7PGmltvkqlj9uGXjUia1p11MAxD3F4I1QuIthn3H5i+8cg3QCQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8256:0:b0:4e0:78ad:eb81 with SMTP id e22-20020aa78256000000b004e078adeb81mr30634560pfn.30.1647377310792; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:200:74b8:5024:28ce:c96e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l11-20020a17090a660b00b001bf576cd2fasm82877pjj.37.2022.03.15.13.48.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:48:25 -0700 From: Emily Shaffer To: Glen Choo Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] introduce submodule.hasSuperproject record Message-ID: References: <20220310004423.2627181-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20220310004423.2627181-3-emilyshaffer@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 03:53:17PM -0800, Glen Choo wrote: > > Glen Choo writes: > > > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > >>> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c > >>> index bef9ab22d4..f53808d995 100644 > >>> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c > >>> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c > >>> @@ -2672,6 +2677,11 @@ static int run_update_procedure(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > >>> &update_data.update_strategy); > >>> > >>> free(prefixed_path); > >>> + /* > >>> + * This entry point is always called from a submodule, so this is a > >>> + * good place to set a hint that this repo is a submodule. > >>> + */ > >>> + git_config_set("submodule.hasSuperproject", "true"); > >>> return update_submodule2(&update_data); > >>> } > >> > >> That matched my tentative resolution I made last night, but what do > >> you think about this part of the test added by the patch? > >> > >> diff --git a/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh b/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh > >> index 11cccbb333..ec2397fc69 100755 > >> --- a/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh > >> +++ b/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh > >> @@ -1061,4 +1061,12 @@ test_expect_success 'submodule update --quiet passes quietness to fetch with a s > >> ) > >> ' > >> > >> +test_expect_success 'submodule update adds submodule.hasSuperproject to older repos' ' > >> + (cd super && > >> + test_unconfig submodule.hasSuperproject && > >> + git submodule update && > >> + test_cmp_config -C submodule true --type=bool submodule.hasSuperproject > >> + ) > >> +' > >> + > >> test_done > >> > >> We go to "super", make sure that superproject does not have > >> submodule.hasSuperproject set, run "git submodule update", and see > >> if the configuration file in "submodule" subdirectory has the > >> variable set. It does not clear the variable from the submodule > >> before starting, so the variable given to the submodule when it was > >> cloned would be there, even if "git submodule update" failed to set > >> it. > >> > >> I am wondering if it should do something like the attached instead. > >> > >> We > >> > >> * clear the variable from "super" and "super/submodule" > >> repositories; > >> > >> * run "git submodule update"; > >> > >> * ensure that "git submodule update" did not touch "super/.git/config"; > >> > >> * ensure that "git submodule update" added the variable to > >> "super/submodule/.git/config". > >> > >> Clearing the variable from "super" is technically wrong because the > >> repository is set up as a submodule of "recursivesuper" and if we > >> had further tests, we should restore it in "super", but the point is > >> that we are makng sure "git submodule update" sets the variable in > >> the configuration file of the submodule, and not in the superproject's. > > > > Yes, the test you've described is closer to what I thought the original > > test was trying to do. Seeing this test pass gave me a false sense of > > confidence hm.. > > Correction, seeing the _original_ test pass gave me false sense of > confidence. > > >> With the conflict resolution above, this "corrected" test fails and > >> shows that superproject's configuration file is updated after "git > >> submodule update". > >> > >> This series alone, without your topic, this "corrected" test fails, > >> and that is where my "are we sure we are mucking with the > >> configuration file in the submodule"? comes from. > > - Set the config in the submodule even though we are running from the > > superproject (this is possible, ensure_core_worktree() does this). > > If it helps, I was able to do this up by copying > ensure_core_worktree(), and this passes the amended test. > > ----- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 --------- >8 ---- > > diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c > index 4d02dd05ca..3bb7a65762 100644 > --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c > +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c > @@ -1838,11 +1838,6 @@ static int clone_submodule(struct module_clone_data *clone_data) > git_config_set_in_file(p, "submodule.alternateErrorStrategy", > error_strategy); > > - /* > - * Teach the submodule that it's a submodule. > - */ > - git_config_set_in_file(p, "submodule.hasSuperproject", "true"); > - > free(sm_alternate); > free(error_strategy); > > @@ -2560,6 +2555,20 @@ static int update_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > return update_submodules(&suc); > } > > +static void set_hassuperproject(const char *sm_path) > +{ > + struct repository subrepo; > + char *cfg_file; > + > + if (repo_submodule_init(&subrepo, the_repository, sm_path, null_oid())) > + die(_("could not get a repository handle for submodule '%s'"), sm_path); Isn't the repo_submodule_init() fairly expensive? I think this is doing a whole repo_init() call we would not otherwise be doing.... Is it good enough to generate the config from sm_path, by using strbuf_repo_worktree_path(), and simply be tolerant of the failure if /config doesn't exist? Otherwise, this is a good workaround I think. Thanks. - Emily