Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: handle missing objects when excluding promisor objects

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 12:37:02AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > this patch fixes the issue reported in [1]. Thanks!
> >  builtin/pack-objects.c   |  3 ++-
> >  t/t5616-partial-clone.sh | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/pack-objects.c b/builtin/pack-objects.c
> > index ca3a891dfbc..d6caed16d97 100644
> > --- a/builtin/pack-objects.c
> > +++ b/builtin/pack-objects.c
> > @@ -5085,7 +5085,8 @@ static int is_not_in_promisor_pack_obj(struct object *obj, void *data UNUSED)
> >  	};
> >  
> >  	if (odb_read_object_info_extended(the_repository->objects, &obj->oid, &info, 0))
> > -		BUG("should_include_obj should only be called on existing objects");
> > +		/* Missing; assume it is a promisor object */
> > +		return 0;
> 
> It is not entirely the fault of this patch, but the code relies on
> .fetch_if_missing being set to 0 elsewhere.  While that is not wrong
> per se, shouldn't this call to odb_read_object_info_extended() pass
> the OBJECT_INFO_SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT bit explicitly for clarity?

Yeah. This is fine in practice because we always unset
`fetch_if_missing` with "--exclude-promisor-objects[-best-effort]", but
adding the flag explicitly for clarity feels sensible to me.

Patrick