| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
While running "revert" or "cherry-pick --edit" for multiple
commits, a recent regression incorrectly detected "nothing to
commit, working tree clean", instead of replaying the commits,
which has been corrected.
* sg/assume-no-todo-update-in-cherry-pick:
sequencer: don't re-read todo for revert and cherry-pick
|
|
When 'git revert' or 'git cherry-pick --edit' is invoked with multiple
commits, then after editing the first commit message is finished both
these commands should continue with processing the second commit and
launch another editor for its commit message, assuming there are
no conflicts, of course.
Alas, this inadvertently changed with commit a47ba3c777 (rebase -i:
check for updated todo after squash and reword, 2019-08-19): after
editing the first commit message is finished, both 'git revert' and
'git cherry-pick --edit' exit with error, claiming that "nothing to
commit, working tree clean".
The reason for the changed behaviour is twofold:
- Prior to a47ba3c777 the up-to-dateness of the todo list file was
only checked after 'exec' instructions, and that commit moved
those checks to the common code path. The intention was that this
check should be performed after instructions spawning an editor
('squash' and 'reword') as well, so the ongoing 'rebase -i'
notices when the user runs a 'git rebase --edit-todo' while
squashing/rewording a commit message.
However, as it happened that check is now performed even after
'revert' and 'pick' instructions when they involved editing the
commit message. And 'revert' by default while 'pick' optionally
(with 'git cherry-pick --edit') involves editing the commit
message.
- When invoking 'git revert' or 'git cherry-pick --edit' with
multiple commits they don't read a todo list file but assemble the
todo list in memory, thus the associated stat data used to check
whether the file has been updated is all zeroed out initially.
Then the sequencer writes all instructions (including the very
first) to the todo file, executes the first 'revert/pick'
instruction, and after the user finished editing the commit
message the changes of a47ba3c777 kick in, and it checks whether
the todo file has been modified. The initial all-zero stat data
obviously differs from the todo file's current stat data, so the
sequencer concludes that the file has been modified. Technically
it is not wrong, of course, because the file just has been written
indeed by the sequencer itself, though the file's contents still
match what the sequencer was invoked with in the beginning.
Consequently, after re-reading the todo file the sequencer
executes the same first instruction _again_, thus ending up in
that "nothing to commit" situation.
The todo list was never meant to be edited during multi-commit 'git
revert' or 'cherry-pick' operations, so perform that "has the todo
file been modified" check only when the sequencer was invoked as part
of an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Test updates to prepare for SHA-2 transition continues.
* bc/hash-independent-tests-part-6:
t4048: abstract away SHA-1-specific constants
t4045: make hash-size independent
t4044: update test to work with SHA-256
t4039: abstract away SHA-1-specific constants
t4038: abstract away SHA-1 specific constants
t4034: abstract away SHA-1-specific constants
t4027: make hash-size independent
t4015: abstract away SHA-1-specific constants
t4011: abstract away SHA-1-specific constants
t4010: abstract away SHA-1-specific constants
t3429: remove SHA1 annotation
t1305: avoid comparing extensions
rev-parse: add a --show-object-format option
t/oid-info: add empty tree and empty blob values
t/oid-info: allow looking up hash algorithm name
|
|
This test passes successfully with SHA-256, so remove the annotation
which limits it to SHA-1.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
While a rebase is stopped for the user to edit a commit message it can
be convenient for them to also edit the todo list. The scripted version
of rebase supported this but the C version does not. We already check to
see if the todo list has been updated by an exec command so extend this
to rewords and squashes. It only costs a single stat call to do this so
it should not affect the speed of the rebase (especially as it has just
stopped for the user to edit a message)
Note that for squashes the editor may be opened on a different pick to
the squash itself as we edit the message at the end of a chain fixups
and squashes.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
It is quite possible that the loose object cache gets stale when new
objects are written. In that case, get_oid() would potentially say that
it cannot find a given object, even if it should find it.
Let's blow away the loose object cache as well as the read packs and try
again in that case.
Note: this does *not* affect the code path that was introduced to help
avoid looking for the same non-existing objects (which made some
operations really expensive via NFS): that code path is handled by the
`OBJECT_INFO_QUICK` flag (which does not even apply to `get_oid()`,
which has no equivalent flag, at least at the time this patch was
written).
This incidentally fixes the problem identified earlier where an
interactive rebase wanted to re-read (and validate) the todo list after
an `exec` command modified it.
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
We specifically support `exec` commands in `git rebase -i`'s todo lists
to rewrite the very same todo list. Of course, we need to validate that
todo list when re-reading it.
It is also totally legitimate to extend the todo list by `pick` lines
using short names of commits that were created only after the rebase
started.
And this is where the loose object cache interferes with this feature:
if *some* loose object was read whose hash shares the same first two
digits with a commit that was not yet created when that loose object was
created, then we fail to find that new commit by its short name in
`get_oid()`, and the interactive rebase fails with an obscure error
message like:
error: invalid line 1: pick 6568fef
error: please fix this using 'git rebase --edit-todo'.
Let's first demonstrate that this is actually a bug in a new regression
test, in a separate commit so that other developers who do not believe
me can cherry-pick it to confirm the problem.
This new regression test generates two commits whose hashes share the
first two hex digits (so that their corresponding loose objects live in
the same subdirectory of .git/objects/, and are therefore supposed to be
in the same loose object cache bin).
It then picks the first, to make sure that the loose object cache is
initialized and cached that object directory, then generates the second
commit and picks it, too. Since the commit was generated in a different
process than the sequencer that wants to pick it, the loose object cache
had no chance of being updated in the meantime.
Technically, we would need only one `exec` command in this regression
test case, but for ease of implementation, it uses a pseudo-recursive
call to the same script.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In the scripted version of the interactive rebase, there was no internal
representation of the todo list; it was re-read before every command.
That allowed the hack that an `exec` command could append (or even
completely rewrite) the todo list.
This hack was broken by the partial conversion of the interactive rebase
to C, and this patch reinstates it.
We also add a small test to verify that this fix does not regress in the
future.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hicks <sdh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
