Re: [PATCHv3 9/9] submodule--helper: use parallel processor correctly.

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

> When implementing the die() in 665b35ecc (2016-06-09, "submodule--helper:
> initial clone learns retry logic"), I considered this condition to be
> a severe condition, which should lead to an immediate abort as we do not
> trust ourselves any more. However the queued messages in `err` are valuable
> so let's not toss them out by immediately dieing, but a graceful return.

I think you'll be rerolling this series at least once (if only to
correct for 6/9), so perhaps split this fix into a preparatory fix
that can go earlier to 'next' and further that the remainder of the
series depend on?

>
> Another thing to note: The error message itself was missleading. A return
> value of 0 doesn't indicate the passed in `ce` is not a submodule any more,
> but just that we do not consider cloning it any more.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
> ---
>  builtin/submodule--helper.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> index fc14843..3e40f99 100644
> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> @@ -815,8 +815,12 @@ static int update_clone_get_next_task(struct child_process *child,
>  	if (index < suc->failed_clones_nr) {
>  		int *p;
>  		ce = suc->failed_clones[index];
> -		if (!prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err))
> -			die("BUG: ce was a submodule before?");
> +		if (!prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err)) {
> +			suc->current ++;

s/current /current/;

> +			strbuf_addf(err, "BUG: submodule considered for cloning,"
> +				    "doesn't need cloning any more?\n");
> +			return 0;
> +		}
>  		p = xmalloc(sizeof(*p));
>  		*p = suc->current;
>  		*idx_task_cb = p;