[PATCHv6 0/7] atomic pushes

[PATCHv6 0/7] atomic pushes

[Stefan Beller]

This patch series adds a flag to git push to update the remote refs atomically.

This series applies on top of origin/mh/reflog-expire
It can also be found at github[1].

This series incorporates all suggestions by Eric. Most changes appear in
patch 4/7 as it is a complete rewrite compared to v5 of this patch series.
5/7 is new to the series and cleans up the rewrite by moving the function
execute_command around.

Any comments are welcome!

Thanks,
Stefan

[1] https://github.com/stefanbeller/git/tree/atomic-push-v6

Ronnie Sahlberg (3):
  receive-pack.c: add protocol support to negotiate atomic-push
  send-pack.c: add --atomic command line argument
  push.c: add an --atomic argument

Stefan Beller (4):
  send-pack: Rename ref_update_to_be_sent to check_to_send_update
  receive-pack.c: receive-pack.c: use a single ref_transaction for
    atomic pushes
  receive-pack: move execute_commands_non_atomic before execute_commands
  t5543-atomic-push.sh: add basic tests for atomic pushes

 Documentation/git-push.txt                        |   7 +-
 Documentation/git-send-pack.txt                   |   7 +-
 Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt |  13 +-
 builtin/push.c                                    |   2 +
 builtin/receive-pack.c                            | 165 +++++++++++++++-----
 builtin/send-pack.c                               |   6 +-
 remote.h                                          |   3 +-
 send-pack.c                                       |  66 +++++++-
 send-pack.h                                       |   3 +-
 t/t5543-atomic-push.sh                            | 178 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 transport.c                                       |   5 +
 transport.h                                       |   1 +
 12 files changed, 405 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
 create mode 100755 t/t5543-atomic-push.sh

-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

[PATCH 1/7] receive-pack.c: add protocol support to negotiate atomic-push

[Stefan Beller]

From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>

This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
* allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
* allow send-pack to request atomic push back.

There is currently no setting in send-pack to actually request that atomic
pushes are to be used yet. This only adds protocol capability not ability
for the user to activate it.

Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    Changes v1 -> v2:
    	* Name it atomic instead of atomic-push. The name changes affects
    	  the flags send over the wire as well as the flags in
    	  struct send_pack_args
    	* Add check, which was part of the later patch here:
    	if (args->atomic && !atomic_supported) {
    		fprintf(stderr, "Server does not support atomic push.");
    		return -1;
    	}
    
    v2 -> v3:
    More concise error reporting as suggested by Junio
    -		fprintf(stderr, "Server does not support atomic push.");
    -		return -1;
    +		return error("server does not support atomic push.");
    
    skipped v4 v5
    
    v6:
    	* s/one single atomic transaction./one atomic transaction./
    	* die(_( instead of return error(

 Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt | 13 +++++++++++--
 builtin/receive-pack.c                            |  6 +++++-
 send-pack.c                                       | 10 ++++++++++
 send-pack.h                                       |  3 ++-
 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
index 6d5424c..4f8a7bf 100644
--- a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
+++ b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
@@ -18,8 +18,9 @@ was sent.  Server MUST NOT ignore capabilities that client requested
 and server advertised.  As a consequence of these rules, server MUST
 NOT advertise capabilities it does not understand.
 
-The 'report-status', 'delete-refs', 'quiet', and 'push-cert' capabilities
-are sent and recognized by the receive-pack (push to server) process.
+The 'atomic', 'report-status', 'delete-refs', 'quiet', and 'push-cert'
+capabilities are sent and recognized by the receive-pack (push to server)
+process.
 
 The 'ofs-delta' and 'side-band-64k' capabilities are sent and recognized
 by both upload-pack and receive-pack protocols.  The 'agent' capability
@@ -244,6 +245,14 @@ respond with the 'quiet' capability to suppress server-side progress
 reporting if the local progress reporting is also being suppressed
 (e.g., via `push -q`, or if stderr does not go to a tty).
 
+atomic
+------
+
+If the server sends the 'atomic' capability it is capable of accepting
+atomic pushes. If the pushing client requests this capability, the server
+will update the refs in one atomic transaction. Either all refs are
+updated or none.
+
 allow-tip-sha1-in-want
 ----------------------
 
diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c
index 32fc540..e76e5d5 100644
--- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
+++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ static int transfer_unpack_limit = -1;
 static int unpack_limit = 100;
 static int report_status;
 static int use_sideband;
+static int use_atomic;
 static int quiet;
 static int prefer_ofs_delta = 1;
 static int auto_update_server_info;
@@ -171,7 +172,8 @@ static void show_ref(const char *path, const unsigned char *sha1)
 		struct strbuf cap = STRBUF_INIT;
 
 		strbuf_addstr(&cap,
-			      "report-status delete-refs side-band-64k quiet");
+			      "report-status delete-refs side-band-64k quiet "
+			      "atomic");
 		if (prefer_ofs_delta)
 			strbuf_addstr(&cap, " ofs-delta");
 		if (push_cert_nonce)
@@ -1179,6 +1181,8 @@ static struct command *read_head_info(struct sha1_array *shallow)
 				use_sideband = LARGE_PACKET_MAX;
 			if (parse_feature_request(feature_list, "quiet"))
 				quiet = 1;
+			if (parse_feature_request(feature_list, "atomic"))
+				use_atomic = 1;
 		}
 
 		if (!strcmp(line, "push-cert")) {
diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c
index 949cb61..6646600 100644
--- a/send-pack.c
+++ b/send-pack.c
@@ -294,6 +294,8 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 	int use_sideband = 0;
 	int quiet_supported = 0;
 	int agent_supported = 0;
+	int use_atomic;
+	int atomic_supported = 0;
 	unsigned cmds_sent = 0;
 	int ret;
 	struct async demux;
@@ -314,6 +316,8 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 		agent_supported = 1;
 	if (server_supports("no-thin"))
 		args->use_thin_pack = 0;
+	if (server_supports("atomic"))
+		atomic_supported = 1;
 	if (args->push_cert) {
 		int len;
 
@@ -328,6 +332,10 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 			"Perhaps you should specify a branch such as 'master'.\n");
 		return 0;
 	}
+	if (args->atomic && !atomic_supported)
+		die(_("server does not support --atomic push"));
+
+	use_atomic = atomic_supported && args->atomic;
 
 	if (status_report)
 		strbuf_addstr(&cap_buf, " report-status");
@@ -335,6 +343,8 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 		strbuf_addstr(&cap_buf, " side-band-64k");
 	if (quiet_supported && (args->quiet || !args->progress))
 		strbuf_addstr(&cap_buf, " quiet");
+	if (use_atomic)
+		strbuf_addstr(&cap_buf, " atomic");
 	if (agent_supported)
 		strbuf_addf(&cap_buf, " agent=%s", git_user_agent_sanitized());
 
diff --git a/send-pack.h b/send-pack.h
index 5635457..b664648 100644
--- a/send-pack.h
+++ b/send-pack.h
@@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ struct send_pack_args {
 		use_ofs_delta:1,
 		dry_run:1,
 		push_cert:1,
-		stateless_rpc:1;
+		stateless_rpc:1,
+		atomic:1;
 };
 
 int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

Re: [PATCH 1/7] receive-pack.c: add protocol support to negotiate atomic-push

[Eric Sunshine]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
>
> This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
> * allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
> * allow send-pack to request atomic push back.
>
> There is currently no setting in send-pack to actually request that atomic
> pushes are to be used yet. This only adds protocol capability not ability
> for the user to activate it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
> index 6d5424c..4f8a7bf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
> @@ -244,6 +245,14 @@ respond with the 'quiet' capability to suppress server-side progress
>  reporting if the local progress reporting is also being suppressed
>  (e.g., via `push -q`, or if stderr does not go to a tty).
>
> +atomic
> +------
> +
> +If the server sends the 'atomic' capability it is capable of accepting
> +atomic pushes. If the pushing client requests this capability, the server
> +will update the refs in one atomic transaction. Either all refs are

Not itself worth a re-send, but if you re-send for some other reason...

"one atomic" still smacks of redundancy; "an atomic" sounds better.

> +updated or none.
> +
>  allow-tip-sha1-in-want
>  ----------------------

Re: [PATCH 1/7] receive-pack.c: add protocol support to negotiate atomic-push

[Stefan Beller]

On 22.12.2014 14:52, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
>>
>> This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
>> * allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
>> * allow send-pack to request atomic push back.
>>
>> There is currently no setting in send-pack to actually request that atomic
>> pushes are to be used yet. This only adds protocol capability not ability
>> for the user to activate it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
>> index 6d5424c..4f8a7bf 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt
>> @@ -244,6 +245,14 @@ respond with the 'quiet' capability to suppress server-side progress
>>  reporting if the local progress reporting is also being suppressed
>>  (e.g., via `push -q`, or if stderr does not go to a tty).
>>
>> +atomic
>> +------
>> +
>> +If the server sends the 'atomic' capability it is capable of accepting
>> +atomic pushes. If the pushing client requests this capability, the server
>> +will update the refs in one atomic transaction. Either all refs are
> 
> Not itself worth a re-send, but if you re-send for some other reason...
> 
> "one atomic" still smacks of redundancy; "an atomic" sounds better.

I did hear you saying 'one single atomic' being too redundant. And I
agree that 'one' and 'single' makes the redundancy.

However I have the impression 'an atomic' is too weak. Not everybody is
a careful reader picking up the subtle notions. Not everybody is english
native. Or concentrated.

Look at it the other way: How could it be done?

* All of the refs could be updated one at a time, not atomically, so
	foreach ref:
		open refs/heads/bla:
			write new sha1

* All of the refs could be updated at once, not atomically:
	open refs pack file:
		write new content
* All of the refs could be updated, one at a time, atomically:
	foreach ref:
		get lock
		write content to lock
		rename into place
* All of the refs at once, atomically.
	open packed refs file lock:
	write new content
	rename into place

That said, atomicity and how many transactions there are, are orthogonal
to each other. That's why I'd keep pointing out 'one atomic'
transaction.

Thanks for all the comments. I may be doing cleanup patches for you on
top of what Junio queued.

	





> 
>> +updated or none.
>> +
>>  allow-tip-sha1-in-want
>>  ----------------------
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/7] receive-pack.c: add protocol support to negotiate atomic-push

[Michael Haggerty]

On 12/19/2014 08:38 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
> 
> This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
> * allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
> * allow send-pack to request atomic push back.
> 
> There is currently no setting in send-pack to actually request that atomic
> pushes are to be used yet. This only adds protocol capability not ability
> for the user to activate it.

Sorry to jump in so late...

If I understand correctly, after this patch the server advertises the
"atomic" capability even though it doesn't actually have that ability
until a later patch. It seems to me that the order of the patches should
be reversed: don't advertise the capability before it is actually
implemented. Why? Bisection. Between the two patches the server is buggy.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu

Re: [PATCH 1/7] receive-pack.c: add protocol support to negotiate atomic-push

[Junio C Hamano]

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> If I understand correctly, after this patch the server advertises the
> "atomic" capability even though it doesn't actually have that ability
> until a later patch. It seems to me that the order of the patches should
> be reversed: don't advertise the capability before it is actually
> implemented. Why? Bisection. Between the two patches the server is buggy.

That is a valid point.  It also reminds us of another thing.

We would need a way to test interoperability among the three new
combinations (i.e. new and old receive-pack talking to new and old
"git push").  We can control what the sender talks on the wire by
giving or not giving "--atomic" option on the command line, but
there should be a way for us to control what the receiver talks on
the wire, i.e. "receivepack.pushAtomic = false" that tells us not to
advertise the "atomic push" capability over the wire, even if you
are running the updated "receive-pack" binary.

This will not only for testing.  When we discover that "atomic"
support is undesirable for whatever reason (e.g. the transaction
machinery may consume too many file descriptors without a good
reason), we would need a way for users to disable it until the
problem is fixed.

And of course the tests should make sure that

 (1) "git push --atomic" that talks with the receiving end that has
     receivepack.pushAtomic set to false behaves as we desire (error
     out? degrade to non-atomic? --- whichever way we decide).

 (2) "git push" that talks with the receiving end with "atomic" enabled
     does not do an atomic push, i.e. try to push two refs, one that
     fast forwards and the other that does not, and see one ref is
     updated while the other ref remains intact and "git push"
     itself reports failured.;

 (3) "git push --atomic" that talks with the receiving end with
     "atomic" enabled does the atomic thing.

among other things.

[PATCH 2/7] send-pack: Rename ref_update_to_be_sent to check_to_send_update

[Stefan Beller]

This renames ref_update_to_be_sent to check_to_send_update and inverts
the meaning of the return value. Having the return value inverted we
can have different values for the error codes. This is useful in a
later patch when we want to know if we hit the CHECK_REF_STATUS_REJECTED
case.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    This was introduced with the [PATCHv2] series.
    Changes v2 -> v3:
    
    * Rename to check_to_send_update
    * Negative error values.
    * errors values are #define'd and not raw numbers.
    
    skipped v4 v5
    
    v6:
    * negative #define'd values

 send-pack.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c
index 6646600..465e6fb 100644
--- a/send-pack.c
+++ b/send-pack.c
@@ -190,10 +190,13 @@ static void advertise_shallow_grafts_buf(struct strbuf *sb)
 	for_each_commit_graft(advertise_shallow_grafts_cb, sb);
 }
 
-static int ref_update_to_be_sent(const struct ref *ref, const struct send_pack_args *args)
+#define CHECK_REF_NO_PUSH -1
+#define CHECK_REF_STATUS_REJECTED -2
+#define CHECK_REF_UPTODATE -3
+static int check_to_send_update(const struct ref *ref, const struct send_pack_args *args)
 {
 	if (!ref->peer_ref && !args->send_mirror)
-		return 0;
+		return CHECK_REF_NO_PUSH;
 
 	/* Check for statuses set by set_ref_status_for_push() */
 	switch (ref->status) {
@@ -203,10 +206,11 @@ static int ref_update_to_be_sent(const struct ref *ref, const struct send_pack_a
 	case REF_STATUS_REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE:
 	case REF_STATUS_REJECT_STALE:
 	case REF_STATUS_REJECT_NODELETE:
+		return CHECK_REF_STATUS_REJECTED;
 	case REF_STATUS_UPTODATE:
-		return 0;
+		return CHECK_REF_UPTODATE;
 	default:
-		return 1;
+		return 0;
 	}
 }
 
@@ -250,7 +254,7 @@ static int generate_push_cert(struct strbuf *req_buf,
 	strbuf_addstr(&cert, "\n");
 
 	for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
-		if (!ref_update_to_be_sent(ref, args))
+		if (check_to_send_update(ref, args) < 0)
 			continue;
 		update_seen = 1;
 		strbuf_addf(&cert, "%s %s %s\n",
@@ -369,7 +373,7 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 	 * the pack data.
 	 */
 	for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
-		if (!ref_update_to_be_sent(ref, args))
+		if (check_to_send_update(ref, args) < 0)
 			continue;
 
 		if (!ref->deletion)
@@ -390,7 +394,7 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 		if (args->dry_run || args->push_cert)
 			continue;
 
-		if (!ref_update_to_be_sent(ref, args))
+		if (check_to_send_update(ref, args) < 0)
 			continue;
 
 		old_hex = sha1_to_hex(ref->old_sha1);
-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

[PATCH 3/7] send-pack.c: add --atomic command line argument

[Stefan Beller]

From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>

This adds support to send-pack to negotiate and use atomic pushes
iff the server supports it. Atomic pushes are activated by a new command
line flag --atomic.

In order to do this we also need to change the semantics for send_pack()
slightly. The existing send_pack() function actually doesn't send all the
refs back to the server when multiple refs are involved, for example
when using --all. Several of the failure modes for pushes can already be
detected locally in the send_pack client based on the information from the
initial server side list of all the refs as generated by receive-pack.
Any such refs that we thus know would fail to push are thus pruned from
the list of refs we send to the server to update.

For atomic pushes, we have to deal thus with both failures that are detected
locally as well as failures that are reported back from the server. In order
to do so we treat all local failures as push failures too.

We introduce a new status code REF_STATUS_ATOMIC_PUSH_FAILED so we can
flag all refs that we would normally have tried to push to the server
but we did not due to local failures. This is to improve the error message
back to the end user to flag that "these refs failed to update since the
atomic push operation failed."

Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    Notes:
        Changes v1 -> v2:
         * Now we only need a very small change in the existing code and have
           a new static function, which cares about error reporting.
              Junio wrote:
              > Hmph.  Is "atomic push" so special that it deserves a separate
              > parameter?  When we come up with yet another mode of failure, would
              > we add another parameter to the callers to this function?
         * error messages are worded differently (lower case!),
         * use of error function instead of fprintf
    
         * undashed the printed error message ("atomic push failed");
    
    Changes v2 -> v3:
    > We avoid assignment inside a conditional.
    
    Ok I switched to using a switch statement.
    
    skipped v4 v5
    
    v6:
    * realign to one error string:
    +	error("atomic push failed for ref %s. status: %d\n",
    +	      failing_ref->name, failing_ref->status);
    
    * Use correct value now (negative defined from previous patch)

 Documentation/git-send-pack.txt |  7 ++++++-
 builtin/send-pack.c             |  6 +++++-
 remote.h                        |  3 ++-
 send-pack.c                     | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 transport.c                     |  4 ++++
 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-send-pack.txt b/Documentation/git-send-pack.txt
index 2a0de42..45c7725 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-send-pack.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-send-pack.txt
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-send-pack - Push objects over Git protocol to another repository
 SYNOPSIS
 --------
 [verse]
-'git send-pack' [--all] [--dry-run] [--force] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>] [--verbose] [--thin] [<host>:]<directory> [<ref>...]
+'git send-pack' [--all] [--dry-run] [--force] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>] [--verbose] [--thin] [--atomic] [<host>:]<directory> [<ref>...]
 
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
@@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ be in a separate packet, and the list must end with a flush packet.
 	Send a "thin" pack, which records objects in deltified form based
 	on objects not included in the pack to reduce network traffic.
 
+--atomic::
+	Use an atomic transaction for updating the refs. If any of the refs
+	fails to update then the entire push will fail without changing any
+	refs.
+
 <host>::
 	A remote host to house the repository.  When this
 	part is specified, 'git-receive-pack' is invoked via
diff --git a/builtin/send-pack.c b/builtin/send-pack.c
index b564a77..b961e5a 100644
--- a/builtin/send-pack.c
+++ b/builtin/send-pack.c
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 #include "sha1-array.h"
 
 static const char send_pack_usage[] =
-"git send-pack [--all | --mirror] [--dry-run] [--force] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>] [--verbose] [--thin] [<host>:]<directory> [<ref>...]\n"
+"git send-pack [--all | --mirror] [--dry-run] [--force] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>] [--verbose] [--thin] [--atomic] [<host>:]<directory> [<ref>...]\n"
 "  --all and explicit <ref> specification are mutually exclusive.";
 
 static struct send_pack_args args;
@@ -170,6 +170,10 @@ int cmd_send_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 				args.use_thin_pack = 1;
 				continue;
 			}
+			if (!strcmp(arg, "--atomic")) {
+				args.atomic = 1;
+				continue;
+			}
 			if (!strcmp(arg, "--stateless-rpc")) {
 				args.stateless_rpc = 1;
 				continue;
diff --git a/remote.h b/remote.h
index 8b62efd..f346524 100644
--- a/remote.h
+++ b/remote.h
@@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ struct ref {
 		REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW,
 		REF_STATUS_UPTODATE,
 		REF_STATUS_REMOTE_REJECT,
-		REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT
+		REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT,
+		REF_STATUS_ATOMIC_PUSH_FAILED
 	} status;
 	char *remote_status;
 	struct ref *peer_ref; /* when renaming */
diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c
index 465e6fb..ba63231 100644
--- a/send-pack.c
+++ b/send-pack.c
@@ -282,6 +282,30 @@ free_return:
 	return update_seen;
 }
 
+
+static int atomic_push_failure(struct send_pack_args *args,
+			       struct ref *remote_refs,
+			       struct ref *failing_ref)
+{
+	struct ref *ref;
+	/* Mark other refs as failed */
+	for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
+		if (!ref->peer_ref && !args->send_mirror)
+			continue;
+
+		switch (ref->status) {
+		case REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT:
+			ref->status = REF_STATUS_ATOMIC_PUSH_FAILED;
+			continue;
+		default:
+			; /* do nothing */
+		}
+	}
+	error("atomic push failed for ref %s. status: %d\n",
+	      failing_ref->name, failing_ref->status);
+	return -1;
+}
+
 int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 	      int fd[], struct child_process *conn,
 	      struct ref *remote_refs,
@@ -373,9 +397,21 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
 	 * the pack data.
 	 */
 	for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
-		if (check_to_send_update(ref, args) < 0)
+		switch (check_to_send_update(ref, args)) {
+		case 0: /* no error */
+			break;
+		case CHECK_REF_STATUS_REJECTED:
+			/*
+			 * When we know the server would reject a ref update if
+			 * we were to send it and we're trying to send the refs
+			 * atomically, abort the whole operation.
+			 */
+			if (use_atomic)
+				return atomic_push_failure(args, remote_refs, ref);
+			/* Fallthrough for non atomic case. */
+		default:
 			continue;
-
+		}
 		if (!ref->deletion)
 			need_pack_data = 1;
 
diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
index 70d38e4..c67feee 100644
--- a/transport.c
+++ b/transport.c
@@ -728,6 +728,10 @@ static int print_one_push_status(struct ref *ref, const char *dest, int count, i
 						 ref->deletion ? NULL : ref->peer_ref,
 						 "remote failed to report status", porcelain);
 		break;
+	case REF_STATUS_ATOMIC_PUSH_FAILED:
+		print_ref_status('!', "[rejected]", ref, ref->peer_ref,
+						 "atomic push failed", porcelain);
+		break;
 	case REF_STATUS_OK:
 		print_ok_ref_status(ref, porcelain);
 		break;
-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

Re: [PATCH 3/7] send-pack.c: add --atomic command line argument

[Eric Sunshine]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
>
> This adds support to send-pack to negotiate and use atomic pushes
> iff the server supports it. Atomic pushes are activated by a new command
> line flag --atomic.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/builtin/send-pack.c b/builtin/send-pack.c
> index b564a77..b961e5a 100644
> --- a/builtin/send-pack.c
> +++ b/builtin/send-pack.c
> @@ -282,6 +282,30 @@ free_return:
>         return update_seen;
>  }
>
> +
> +static int atomic_push_failure(struct send_pack_args *args,
> +                              struct ref *remote_refs,
> +                              struct ref *failing_ref)
> +{
> +       struct ref *ref;
> +       /* Mark other refs as failed */
> +       for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> +               if (!ref->peer_ref && !args->send_mirror)
> +                       continue;
> +
> +               switch (ref->status) {
> +               case REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT:
> +                       ref->status = REF_STATUS_ATOMIC_PUSH_FAILED;
> +                       continue;
> +               default:
> +                       ; /* do nothing */
> +               }
> +       }
> +       error("atomic push failed for ref %s. status: %d\n",
> +             failing_ref->name, failing_ref->status);
> +       return -1;

Not itself worth a re-send, but if you do re-send for some other reason...

    return error(...);

would be more idiomatic (as mentioned in the previous review).

> +}
> +
>  int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
>               int fd[], struct child_process *conn,
>               struct ref *remote_refs,

[PATCH 4/7] receive-pack.c: receive-pack.c: use a single ref_transaction for atomic pushes

[Stefan Beller]

Update receive-pack to use an atomic transaction iff the client negotiated
that it wanted atomic-push. This leaves the default behavior to be the old
non-atomic one ref at a time update. This is to cause as little disruption
as possible to existing clients. It is unknown if there are client scripts
that depend on the old non-atomic behavior so we make it opt-in for now.

If it turns out over time that there are no client scripts that depend on the
old behavior we can change git to default to use atomic pushes and instead
offer an opt-out argument for people that do not want atomic pushes.

Inspired-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    Changes in v6:
    	This is a complete rewrite of the patch essentially.
    	Eric suggested to split up the flow into functions, so
    	it is easier to read. It's more lines of code, but indeed
    	it's easier to follow. Thanks Eric!
    
    	Note there is another patch following this one
    	moving the helper functions above execute_commands.
    	I just choose the order of the functions in this patch
    	to have a better diff (just inserting the call to the function
    	execute_commands_non_atomic and that function directly follows.)
    	The next patch of the series will move that up.
    
    	Because of the rewrite and the fixes of the previous five
    	versions there is not much left of Ronnies original patch,
    	so I'll claim authorship of this one.
    
    Changes v1 -> v2:
    	* update(...) assumes to be always in a transaction
    	* Caring about when to begin/commit transactions is put
    	  into execute_commands
    v2->v3:
    	* meditated about the error flow. Now we always construct a local
    	  strbuf err if required. Then the flow is easier to follow and
    	  destruction of it is performed nearby.
    	* early return in execute_commands if transaction_begin fails.
    
    v3->v4:
    	* revamp logic again. This should keep the non atomic behavior
    	  as is (in case of error say so, in non error case just free the
    	  transaction). In the atomic case we either do nothing (when no error),
    	  or abort with the goto.
    
    		if (!cmd->error_string) {
    			if (!use_atomic
    			    && ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err)) {
    				ref_transaction_free(transaction);
    				rp_error("%s", err.buf);
    				strbuf_release(&err);
    				cmd->error_string = "failed to update ref";
    			}
    		} else if (use_atomic) {
    			goto atomic_failure;
    		} else {
    			ref_transaction_free(transaction);
    		}
    
    	 * Having the goto directly there when checking for cmd->error_string,
    	   we don't need to do it again, so the paragraph explaining the error
    	   checking is gone as well. (Previous patch had the following, this is
    	   put at the end of the function, where the goto jumps to and the comment
    	   has been dropped.
    +		/*
    +		 * update(...) may abort early (i.e. because the hook refused to
    +		 * update that ref) which then doesn't even record a transaction
    +		 * regarding that ref. Make sure all commands are without error
    +		 * and then commit atomically.
    +		 */
    +		for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next)
    +			if (cmd->error_string)
    +				break;
    
    v4->v5:
    Eric wrote:
    > Repeating from my earlier review[1]: If the 'pre-receive' hook
    > "declines", then this transaction is left dangling (and its resources
    > leaked).
    
    You're right. The initialization of the transaction is now
    near the actual loop after the pre receive hook.
    
    > The !use_atomic case (below), calls this error "failed to start
    > transaction", not merely "transaction error".
    
    ok, now both are "transaction failed to start".
    In all cases where these generic errors are reported,
    we do have a rp_error(...) with details.
    
    > Furthermore, in the use_atomic case (also below), when a commit fails,
    > you assign err.buf to cmd->error_string rather than a generic
    > "transaction error" message. What differs between these cases which
    > makes the generic message preferable here over the more specific
    > err.buf message?
    
    They are the same now.
    
    > Repeating from my earlier review[1]: This is leaking 'transaction' for
    > each successful commit (and only freeing it upon commit error).
    
    Right. I thought I had it covered with the else clause. Of course not.
    
    > At the end of this function, strbuf_release(&err) is invoked, which
    > leaves all these cmd->error_strings dangling.
    
    I removed all assignments of err.buf now.
    
    > goto's can help simplify error-handling when multiple conditional
    > branches need to perform common cleanup, however, this label
    > corresponds to only a single goto statement.
    
    moved up again.

 builtin/receive-pack.c | 137 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 115 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c
index e76e5d5..710cd7f 100644
--- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
+++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ static const char *NONCE_SLOP = "SLOP";
 static const char *nonce_status;
 static long nonce_stamp_slop;
 static unsigned long nonce_stamp_slop_limit;
+static struct ref_transaction *transaction;
 
 static enum deny_action parse_deny_action(const char *var, const char *value)
 {
@@ -823,6 +824,7 @@ static const char *update(struct command *cmd, struct shallow_info *si)
 	}
 
 	if (is_null_sha1(new_sha1)) {
+		struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
 		if (!parse_object(old_sha1)) {
 			old_sha1 = NULL;
 			if (ref_exists(name)) {
@@ -832,35 +834,36 @@ static const char *update(struct command *cmd, struct shallow_info *si)
 				cmd->did_not_exist = 1;
 			}
 		}
-		if (delete_ref(namespaced_name, old_sha1, 0)) {
-			rp_error("failed to delete %s", name);
+		if (ref_transaction_delete(transaction,
+					   namespaced_name,
+					   old_sha1,
+					   0, old_sha1 != NULL,
+					   "push", &err)) {
+			rp_error("%s", err.buf);
+			strbuf_release(&err);
 			return "failed to delete";
 		}
+		strbuf_release(&err);
 		return NULL; /* good */
 	}
 	else {
 		struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
-		struct ref_transaction *transaction;
-
 		if (shallow_update && si->shallow_ref[cmd->index] &&
 		    update_shallow_ref(cmd, si))
 			return "shallow error";
 
-		transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
-		if (!transaction ||
-		    ref_transaction_update(transaction, namespaced_name,
-					   new_sha1, old_sha1, 0, 1, "push",
-					   &err) ||
-		    ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err)) {
-			ref_transaction_free(transaction);
-
+		if (ref_transaction_update(transaction,
+					   namespaced_name,
+					   new_sha1, old_sha1,
+					   0, 1, "push",
+					   &err)) {
 			rp_error("%s", err.buf);
 			strbuf_release(&err);
+
 			return "failed to update ref";
 		}
-
-		ref_transaction_free(transaction);
 		strbuf_release(&err);
+
 		return NULL; /* good */
 	}
 }
@@ -1044,11 +1047,72 @@ static void reject_updates_to_hidden(struct command *commands)
 	}
 }
 
+static void execute_commands_non_atomic(struct command *commands,
+				    struct shallow_info *si);
+
+
+static void execute_commands_atomic(struct command *commands,
+				    struct shallow_info *si)
+{
+	struct command *cmd;
+	struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
+	const char *reported_error = "atomic push failure";
+	int checked_connectivity = 1;
+	transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
+	if (!transaction) {
+		rp_error("%s", err.buf);
+		reported_error = "transaction failed to start";
+		goto failure;
+	}
+
+	for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
+		if (cmd->error_string)
+			goto failure;
+
+		if (cmd->skip_update)
+			goto failure;
+
+		cmd->error_string = update(cmd, si);
+
+		if (cmd->error_string)
+			goto failure;
+
+		if (shallow_update && si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]) {
+			error("BUG: connectivity check has not been run on ref %s",
+			      cmd->ref_name);
+			checked_connectivity = 0;
+			reported_error = "transaction failed due to internal bug";
+			goto failure;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err)) {
+		rp_error("%s", err.buf);
+		reported_error = "atomic transaction failed";
+		goto failure;
+	}
+
+	ref_transaction_free(transaction);
+	strbuf_release(&err);
+	return;
+
+failure:
+	for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next)
+		if (!cmd->error_string)
+			cmd->error_string = reported_error;
+	ref_transaction_free(transaction);
+	strbuf_release(&err);
+
+	if (shallow_update && !checked_connectivity)
+		error("BUG: run 'git fsck' for safety.\n"
+		      "If there are errors, try to remove "
+		      "the reported refs above");
+}
+
 static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
 			     const char *unpacker_error,
 			     struct shallow_info *si)
 {
-	int checked_connectivity;
 	struct command *cmd;
 	unsigned char sha1[20];
 	struct iterate_data data;
@@ -1079,7 +1143,20 @@ static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
 	free(head_name_to_free);
 	head_name = head_name_to_free = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, sha1, NULL);
 
-	checked_connectivity = 1;
+	if (use_atomic) {
+		execute_commands_atomic(commands, si);
+	} else {
+		execute_commands_non_atomic(commands, si);
+	}
+}
+
+static void execute_commands_non_atomic(struct command *commands,
+					struct shallow_info *si)
+{
+	struct command *cmd;
+	struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
+	int checked_connectivity = 1;
+
 	for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
 		if (cmd->error_string)
 			continue;
@@ -1087,19 +1164,35 @@ static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
 		if (cmd->skip_update)
 			continue;
 
+		transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
+		if (!transaction) {
+			rp_error("%s", err.buf);
+			strbuf_reset(&err);
+			cmd->error_string = "transaction failed to start";
+			continue;
+		}
+
 		cmd->error_string = update(cmd, si);
-		if (shallow_update && !cmd->error_string &&
-		    si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]) {
-			error("BUG: connectivity check has not been run on ref %s",
-			      cmd->ref_name);
-			checked_connectivity = 0;
+
+		if (!cmd->error_string) {
+			if (ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err)) {
+				rp_error("%s", err.buf);
+				strbuf_reset(&err);
+				cmd->error_string = "failed to update ref";
+			}
+			if (shallow_update && si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]) {
+				error("BUG: connectivity check has not been run on ref %s",
+				      cmd->ref_name);
+				checked_connectivity = 0;
+			}
 		}
+		ref_transaction_free(transaction);
 	}
-
 	if (shallow_update && !checked_connectivity)
 		error("BUG: run 'git fsck' for safety.\n"
 		      "If there are errors, try to remove "
 		      "the reported refs above");
+	strbuf_release(&err);
 }
 
 static struct command **queue_command(struct command **tail,
-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

Re: [PATCH 4/7] receive-pack.c: receive-pack.c: use a single ref_transaction for atomic pushes

[Eric Sunshine]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> Update receive-pack to use an atomic transaction iff the client negotiated
> that it wanted atomic-push. This leaves the default behavior to be the old
> non-atomic one ref at a time update. This is to cause as little disruption
> as possible to existing clients. It is unknown if there are client scripts
> that depend on the old non-atomic behavior so we make it opt-in for now.
>
> If it turns out over time that there are no client scripts that depend on the
> old behavior we can change git to default to use atomic pushes and instead
> offer an opt-out argument for people that do not want atomic pushes.

Notes and observations below. None of them are particularly
actionable. If Junio is happy with the current round, and if you don't
have some other reason to re-roll, then consider them food for thought
for future patches.

> Inspired-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
> Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c
> index e76e5d5..710cd7f 100644
> --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
> +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
> @@ -1044,11 +1047,72 @@ static void reject_updates_to_hidden(struct command *commands)
>         }
>  }
>
> +static void execute_commands_non_atomic(struct command *commands,
> +                                   struct shallow_info *si);
> +
> +
> +static void execute_commands_atomic(struct command *commands,
> +                                   struct shallow_info *si)
> +{
> +       struct command *cmd;
> +       struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
> +       const char *reported_error = "atomic push failure";
> +       int checked_connectivity = 1;
> +       transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
> +       if (!transaction) {
> +               rp_error("%s", err.buf);
> +               reported_error = "transaction failed to start";
> +               goto failure;
> +       }
> +
> +       for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
> +               if (cmd->error_string)
> +                       goto failure;
> +
> +               if (cmd->skip_update)
> +                       goto failure;

These checks are common to the atomic and non-atomic cases. To reduce
code duplication between the two cases, you could factor them out to a
cmd_okay() helper function (or some such name) which checks both
conditions.

> +               cmd->error_string = update(cmd, si);
> +
> +               if (cmd->error_string)
> +                       goto failure;
> +
> +               if (shallow_update && si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]) {
> +                       error("BUG: connectivity check has not been run on ref %s",
> +                             cmd->ref_name);
> +                       checked_connectivity = 0;
> +                       reported_error = "transaction failed due to internal bug";
> +                       goto failure;

This code is also common to atomic and non-atomic cases and could be
factored out to a helper function, thus further reducing duplication.
The less code duplication between cases, the lower the cognitive load,
making the code easier to understand.

> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       if (ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err)) {
> +               rp_error("%s", err.buf);
> +               reported_error = "atomic transaction failed";
> +               goto failure;
> +       }
> +
> +       ref_transaction_free(transaction);
> +       strbuf_release(&err);
> +       return;
> +
> +failure:
> +       for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next)
> +               if (!cmd->error_string)
> +                       cmd->error_string = reported_error;
> +       ref_transaction_free(transaction);
> +       strbuf_release(&err);
> +
> +       if (shallow_update && !checked_connectivity)
> +               error("BUG: run 'git fsck' for safety.\n"
> +                     "If there are errors, try to remove "
> +                     "the reported refs above");

This final conditional is common to both cases but does not even need
to be factored out to a helper function. It could/should have remained
in execute_commands() at its original position, following the call to
execute_commands_atomic() or execute_commands_non_atomic().

> +}
> +
>  static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
>                              const char *unpacker_error,
>                              struct shallow_info *si)
>  {
> -       int checked_connectivity;
>         struct command *cmd;
>         unsigned char sha1[20];
>         struct iterate_data data;
> @@ -1079,7 +1143,20 @@ static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
>         free(head_name_to_free);
>         head_name = head_name_to_free = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, sha1, NULL);
>
> -       checked_connectivity = 1;
> +       if (use_atomic) {
> +               execute_commands_atomic(commands, si);
> +       } else {
> +               execute_commands_non_atomic(commands, si);
> +       }

Style: Unnecessary braces.

More below.

> +}
> +
> +static void execute_commands_non_atomic(struct command *commands,
> +                                       struct shallow_info *si)
> +{
> +       struct command *cmd;
> +       struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
> +       int checked_connectivity = 1;
> +
>         for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
>                 if (cmd->error_string)
>                         continue;
> @@ -1087,19 +1164,35 @@ static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
>                 if (cmd->skip_update)
>                         continue;
>
> +               transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
> +               if (!transaction) {
> +                       rp_error("%s", err.buf);
> +                       strbuf_reset(&err);
> +                       cmd->error_string = "transaction failed to start";
> +                       continue;
> +               }
> +
>                 cmd->error_string = update(cmd, si);
> -               if (shallow_update && !cmd->error_string &&
> -                   si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]) {
> -                       error("BUG: connectivity check has not been run on ref %s",
> -                             cmd->ref_name);
> -                       checked_connectivity = 0;
> +
> +               if (!cmd->error_string) {
> +                       if (ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err)) {
> +                               rp_error("%s", err.buf);
> +                               strbuf_reset(&err);
> +                               cmd->error_string = "failed to update ref";
> +                       }
> +                       if (shallow_update && si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]) {
> +                               error("BUG: connectivity check has not been run on ref %s",
> +                                     cmd->ref_name);
> +                               checked_connectivity = 0;
> +                       }

There is a behavior change here. In the original, the
'si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]' check was performed only if no other
error occurred, however, in the updated code, the check is performed
even when ref_transaction_commit() fails. Is this correct behavior?

>                 }
> +               ref_transaction_free(transaction);
>         }
> -
>         if (shallow_update && !checked_connectivity)
>                 error("BUG: run 'git fsck' for safety.\n"
>                       "If there are errors, try to remove "
>                       "the reported refs above");
> +       strbuf_release(&err);
>  }
>
>  static struct command **queue_command(struct command **tail,
> --

A few comments about the refactoring...

It would have been easier to follow and understand the changes had
they been done in a stepwise fashion over a series of patches,
resulting in a less confusing diff (and avoiding the need for the
follow-up patch where you merely relocate the modified code).

One possible approach would have been something like this:

patch 1: Factor out code into helper functions which will be needed by
the upcoming atomic and non-atomic worker functions. Example helpers:
'cmd->error_string' and cmd->skip_update' check; and the
'si->shallow_ref[cmd->index]' check and handling.

patch 2: Factor out the main 'for' loop of execute_commands() into a
new function. This new function will eventually become
execute_commands_non_atomic(). At this point, execute_commands() is
pretty much in its final form with the exception of the upcoming 'if
(use_atomic)' conditional.

patch 3: Morph the function extracted in patch 2 into
execute_commands_non_atomic() by adding transaction handling inside
the 'for' loop (and applying the changes from the early part of the
patch which go along with that).

patch 4: Add execute_commands_atomic(), and the corresponding 'if
(use_atomic)' conditional to execute_commands().

Other approaches are possible, but the motivation behind the above
organization is that reviewer time is precious, and that it's
beneficial to present changes in an easy-to-digest form.

[PATCH 5/7] receive-pack: move execute_commands_non_atomic before execute_commands

[Stefan Beller]

This way we don't need to declare the function first and implement it
later, but rather we put the implementation directly at the place where
the function was declared.

The reason I did not move it up in the first place is better readability
of the diff as the execute_commands_non_atomic function is taking lots of
code that was once in execute_commands.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    This patch is new with v6 of the series
    
    As execute_commands_non_atomic is larger than execute_commands, the diff
    is not moving around execute_commands_non_atomic, but execute_commands.
    These two functions were one after the other and switch places that way.

 builtin/receive-pack.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c
index 710cd7f..d47e73b 100644
--- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
+++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
@@ -1047,10 +1047,6 @@ static void reject_updates_to_hidden(struct command *commands)
 	}
 }
 
-static void execute_commands_non_atomic(struct command *commands,
-				    struct shallow_info *si);
-
-
 static void execute_commands_atomic(struct command *commands,
 				    struct shallow_info *si)
 {
@@ -1109,47 +1105,6 @@ failure:
 		      "the reported refs above");
 }
 
-static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
-			     const char *unpacker_error,
-			     struct shallow_info *si)
-{
-	struct command *cmd;
-	unsigned char sha1[20];
-	struct iterate_data data;
-
-	if (unpacker_error) {
-		for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next)
-			cmd->error_string = "unpacker error";
-		return;
-	}
-
-	data.cmds = commands;
-	data.si = si;
-	if (check_everything_connected(iterate_receive_command_list, 0, &data))
-		set_connectivity_errors(commands, si);
-
-	reject_updates_to_hidden(commands);
-
-	if (run_receive_hook(commands, "pre-receive", 0)) {
-		for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
-			if (!cmd->error_string)
-				cmd->error_string = "pre-receive hook declined";
-		}
-		return;
-	}
-
-	check_aliased_updates(commands);
-
-	free(head_name_to_free);
-	head_name = head_name_to_free = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, sha1, NULL);
-
-	if (use_atomic) {
-		execute_commands_atomic(commands, si);
-	} else {
-		execute_commands_non_atomic(commands, si);
-	}
-}
-
 static void execute_commands_non_atomic(struct command *commands,
 					struct shallow_info *si)
 {
@@ -1195,6 +1150,47 @@ static void execute_commands_non_atomic(struct command *commands,
 	strbuf_release(&err);
 }
 
+static void execute_commands(struct command *commands,
+			     const char *unpacker_error,
+			     struct shallow_info *si)
+{
+	struct command *cmd;
+	unsigned char sha1[20];
+	struct iterate_data data;
+
+	if (unpacker_error) {
+		for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next)
+			cmd->error_string = "unpacker error";
+		return;
+	}
+
+	data.cmds = commands;
+	data.si = si;
+	if (check_everything_connected(iterate_receive_command_list, 0, &data))
+		set_connectivity_errors(commands, si);
+
+	reject_updates_to_hidden(commands);
+
+	if (run_receive_hook(commands, "pre-receive", 0)) {
+		for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
+			if (!cmd->error_string)
+				cmd->error_string = "pre-receive hook declined";
+		}
+		return;
+	}
+
+	check_aliased_updates(commands);
+
+	free(head_name_to_free);
+	head_name = head_name_to_free = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, sha1, NULL);
+
+	if (use_atomic) {
+		execute_commands_atomic(commands, si);
+	} else {
+		execute_commands_non_atomic(commands, si);
+	}
+}
+
 static struct command **queue_command(struct command **tail,
 				      const char *line,
 				      int linelen)
-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

Re: [PATCH 5/7] receive-pack: move execute_commands_non_atomic before execute_commands

[Junio C Hamano]

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

> Notes:
>     This patch is new with v6 of the series
>     
>     As execute_commands_non_atomic is larger than execute_commands, the diff
>     is not moving around execute_commands_non_atomic, but execute_commands.

;-)

Next time perhaps try "--patience" to decide between with and
without which one reads better?

Re: [PATCH 5/7] receive-pack: move execute_commands_non_atomic before execute_commands

[Stefan Beller]

I tried all four diff options as listed in the man page of
format-diff. I forget which one I used, but there was no large
difference w.r.t. reviewability if I remember correctly.


On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>> Notes:
>>     This patch is new with v6 of the series
>>
>>     As execute_commands_non_atomic is larger than execute_commands, the diff
>>     is not moving around execute_commands_non_atomic, but execute_commands.
>
> ;-)
>
> Next time perhaps try "--patience" to decide between with and
> without which one reads better?

[PATCH 6/7] push.c: add an --atomic argument

[Stefan Beller]

From: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>

Add a command line argument to the git push command to request atomic
pushes.

Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    Changes v1 -> v2
    	It's --atomic now! (dropping the -push)
    
    v2->v3:
    	* s/atomic-push/atomic/
    	* s/the an/an/
    	* no serverside, but just remote instead
    	* TRANSPORT_PUSH_ATOMIC instead of TRANSPORT_ATOMIC_PUSH
    
    skipped v4 v5
    
    v6:
    -		OPT_BIT(0, "atomic", &flags, N_("use an atomic transaction remote"),
    +		OPT_BIT(0, "atomic", &flags, N_("request atomic transaction on remote side"),

 Documentation/git-push.txt | 7 ++++++-
 builtin/push.c             | 2 ++
 transport.c                | 1 +
 transport.h                | 1 +
 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
index 21b3f29..da63bdf 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-push - Update remote refs along with associated objects
 SYNOPSIS
 --------
 [verse]
-'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [-n | --dry-run] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>]
+'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [--atomic] [-n | --dry-run] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>]
 	   [--repo=<repository>] [-f | --force] [--prune] [-v | --verbose]
 	   [-u | --set-upstream] [--signed]
 	   [--force-with-lease[=<refname>[:<expect>]]]
@@ -136,6 +136,11 @@ already exists on the remote side.
 	logged.  See linkgit:git-receive-pack[1] for the details
 	on the receiving end.
 
+--atomic::
+	Use an atomic transaction on the remote side if available.
+	Either all refs are updated, or on error, no refs are updated.
+	If the server does not support atomic pushes the push will fail.
+
 --receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>::
 --exec=<git-receive-pack>::
 	Path to the 'git-receive-pack' program on the remote
diff --git a/builtin/push.c b/builtin/push.c
index a076b19..1689cec 100644
--- a/builtin/push.c
+++ b/builtin/push.c
@@ -518,6 +518,8 @@ int cmd_push(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		OPT_BIT(0, "follow-tags", &flags, N_("push missing but relevant tags"),
 			TRANSPORT_PUSH_FOLLOW_TAGS),
 		OPT_BIT(0, "signed", &flags, N_("GPG sign the push"), TRANSPORT_PUSH_CERT),
+		OPT_BIT(0, "atomic", &flags, N_("request atomic transaction on remote side"),
+			TRANSPORT_PUSH_ATOMIC),
 		OPT_END()
 	};
 
diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
index c67feee..1373152 100644
--- a/transport.c
+++ b/transport.c
@@ -830,6 +830,7 @@ static int git_transport_push(struct transport *transport, struct ref *remote_re
 	args.dry_run = !!(flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_DRY_RUN);
 	args.porcelain = !!(flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_PORCELAIN);
 	args.push_cert = !!(flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_CERT);
+	args.atomic = !!(flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_ATOMIC);
 	args.url = transport->url;
 
 	ret = send_pack(&args, data->fd, data->conn, remote_refs,
diff --git a/transport.h b/transport.h
index 3e0091e..18d2cf8 100644
--- a/transport.h
+++ b/transport.h
@@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ struct transport {
 #define TRANSPORT_PUSH_NO_HOOK 512
 #define TRANSPORT_PUSH_FOLLOW_TAGS 1024
 #define TRANSPORT_PUSH_CERT 2048
+#define TRANSPORT_PUSH_ATOMIC 4096
 
 #define TRANSPORT_SUMMARY_WIDTH (2 * DEFAULT_ABBREV + 3)
 #define TRANSPORT_SUMMARY(x) (int)(TRANSPORT_SUMMARY_WIDTH + strlen(x) - gettext_width(x)), (x)
-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

Re: [PATCH 6/7] push.c: add an --atomic argument

[Michael Haggerty]

On 12/19/2014 08:39 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Add a command line argument to the git push command to request atomic
> pushes.
> 
> [...]
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> index 21b3f29..da63bdf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-push - Update remote refs along with associated objects
>  SYNOPSIS
>  --------
>  [verse]
> -'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [-n | --dry-run] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>]
> +'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [--atomic] [-n | --dry-run] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>]
>  	   [--repo=<repository>] [-f | --force] [--prune] [-v | --verbose]
>  	   [-u | --set-upstream] [--signed]
>  	   [--force-with-lease[=<refname>[:<expect>]]]
> @@ -136,6 +136,11 @@ already exists on the remote side.
>  	logged.  See linkgit:git-receive-pack[1] for the details
>  	on the receiving end.
>  
> +--atomic::
> +	Use an atomic transaction on the remote side if available.
> +	Either all refs are updated, or on error, no refs are updated.
> +	If the server does not support atomic pushes the push will fail.
> +
> [...]

I'd like to discuss the big picture around this feature. I don't think
that any of these questions are blockers, with the possible exception of
the question of whether "--atomic" should fall back to non-atomic if the
server doesn't support atomic pushes.


1. Should "--atomic" someday become the default?

You seem to imply that "--atomic" might become the default sometime in
the future. (I realize that this patch series does not propose to change
the default but let's talk about it anyway.) In the real world, the most
common reason for an "--atomic" push to fail would be that somebody else
has pushed to a branch since our last update, resulting in a non-ff
error. Would I find out about such an error before or after I have
transferred my objects to the server?

If I only find out at the end of the transfer, then it could be a pretty
frustrating experience pushing a lot of references to a server over a
slow connection. After waiting for a long transfer to complete the user
would find out that the push was rejected and everything has to be done
again from scratch. In such cases non-"--atomic" behavior might be
attractive: any references that can be updated should be updated, so
that not *all* of the objects have to be pushed again.

Even *if* "--atomic" becomes the default, we would certainly want to
support a "--no-atomic" (or "--non-atomic"?) option to get the old
behavior. It might be a good idea to add that option now, so that
forward-looking script writers can start explicitly choosing "--atomic"
vs. "--no-atomic".


2. Is this an option that users will want to specify via the command line?

For scripts that want to insist on "atomic" updates, it is no problem to
specify "--atomic" on the command line.

But supposing that "--atomic" is a good default for some people, it
would be awkward for them to have to specify it on every "git push"
invocation. It therefore might be nice to have a configuration setting
to choose whether "--atomic" is the default.

Also (see above) it might be useful to set "--atomic" only for
particular servers (for example, only for those to which you have a fast
connection). This suggests that the "atomic/non-atomic" configuration
should be settable on a per-remote basis.


3. What should happen if the server doesn't support atomic pushes?

It seems to me that there are four reasonable behaviors WRT atomic
pushes. I'll give them tentative names for the purposes of this discussion:

"force" -- Insist on an atomic push, and fail if the server does not
support atomic pushes

"true" -- Use atomic push if supported by the server. If not, emit a
warning and fall back to non-atomic.

"auto" -- Use atomic push if supported by the server. If not, silently
fall back to non-atomic.

"false" -- Push non-atomically regardless of whether the server supports
atomic pushes.

To make it practical to set "atomic" as a universal default, we will
have to be able to deal with servers that don't (yet) support atomic
pushes. Therefore, we would want to use either "true" or "auto" (as
opposed to "force") as the default.

Even in such a case, it would be nice for the user to be able to
suppress any warnings for servers that don't support atomic updates. So
if "true" becomes the default, then we might want to support "auto" as well.

(One could argue that once "atomic" becomes the default, then anybody
who has to deal with an old server should just set "non-atomic" as the
default for that server. But even aside from the inconvenience to the
user, this is not a good alternative. A user who made that change
wouldn't benefit from atomic pushes once the server is upgraded to
support them.)

The command-line "--atomic" option is proposed to request "force"
behavior. On the one hand that makes sense; the user has explicitly
requested an atomic push, so the command should fail if it is not
possible. But on the other hand, if a particular server doesn't (yet)
support atomic pushes, what recourse does the user have but to run the
push again non-atomically? So it might be more expedient for the
"--atomic" option to be equivalent to "true" instead of "force". I don't
have a strong opinion on this either way.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu

Re: [PATCH 6/7] push.c: add an --atomic argument

[Stefan Beller]

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On 12/19/2014 08:39 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> Add a command line argument to the git push command to request atomic
>> pushes.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
>> index 21b3f29..da63bdf 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-push - Update remote refs along with associated objects
>>  SYNOPSIS
>>  --------
>>  [verse]
>> -'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [-n | --dry-run] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>]
>> +'git push' [--all | --mirror | --tags] [--follow-tags] [--atomic] [-n | --dry-run] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>]
>>          [--repo=<repository>] [-f | --force] [--prune] [-v | --verbose]
>>          [-u | --set-upstream] [--signed]
>>          [--force-with-lease[=<refname>[:<expect>]]]
>> @@ -136,6 +136,11 @@ already exists on the remote side.
>>       logged.  See linkgit:git-receive-pack[1] for the details
>>       on the receiving end.
>>
>> +--atomic::
>> +     Use an atomic transaction on the remote side if available.
>> +     Either all refs are updated, or on error, no refs are updated.
>> +     If the server does not support atomic pushes the push will fail.
>> +
>> [...]
>
> I'd like to discuss the big picture around this feature. I don't think
> that any of these questions are blockers, with the possible exception of
> the question of whether "--atomic" should fall back to non-atomic if the
> server doesn't support atomic pushes.
>
>
> 1. Should "--atomic" someday become the default?
>
> You seem to imply that "--atomic" might become the default sometime in
> the future. (I realize that this patch series does not propose to change
> the default but let's talk about it anyway.) In the real world, the most
> common reason for an "--atomic" push to fail would be that somebody else
> has pushed to a branch since our last update, resulting in a non-ff
> error. Would I find out about such an error before or after I have
> transferred my objects to the server?

Another idea which I picked up from later patches in Ronnies original series
would be to have a hidden refs directory at the server side. Then the push
command would first transfer all the objects to this hidden refs space and at
the very end the server would just update all the refs atomically.

If that fails because somebody else has just pushed stuff to one of the
branches you intended to update, the changes are still at the server in the
hidden space. So if you just did a pull/merge on that branch and then
try to push
again, you would not have to transmit the objects again as they are
already there
at the server.

These changes in such a hidden space on the server side could be just normal
refs just not(never!) advertised to users.

>
> If I only find out at the end of the transfer, then it could be a pretty
> frustrating experience pushing a lot of references to a server over a
> slow connection. After waiting for a long transfer to complete the user
> would find out that the push was rejected and everything has to be done
> again from scratch. In such cases non-"--atomic" behavior might be
> attractive: any references that can be updated should be updated, so
> that not *all* of the objects have to be pushed again.
>
> Even *if* "--atomic" becomes the default, we would certainly want to
> support a "--no-atomic" (or "--non-atomic"?) option to get the old
> behavior. It might be a good idea to add that option now, so that
> forward-looking script writers can start explicitly choosing "--atomic"
> vs. "--no-atomic".

That's a good point. Though I am not sure where you'd want me to add the
--no-atomic flag.

I don't think we'll change send-pack as it's plumbing. So current unmaintained
scripts should continue to work the way they always did, i.e. having
the --no-atomic
behavior. The atomic behavior made default would just be part of git
push, which is
porcelain which is expected to change? But there it makes sense to have a
--no-atomic option in place.

>
>
> 2. Is this an option that users will want to specify via the command line?
>
> For scripts that want to insist on "atomic" updates, it is no problem to
> specify "--atomic" on the command line.
>
> But supposing that "--atomic" is a good default for some people, it
> would be awkward for them to have to specify it on every "git push"
> invocation. It therefore might be nice to have a configuration setting
> to choose whether "--atomic" is the default.

That's true. Would it make sense to include that in this series or delay it for
another series? I don't want to make the series so large again so it becomes
reviewer-unfriendly.

>
> Also (see above) it might be useful to set "--atomic" only for
> particular servers (for example, only for those to which you have a fast
> connection). This suggests that the "atomic/non-atomic" configuration
> should be settable on a per-remote basis.

So on the client side you want to configure on a per-remote basis which default
behavior to use and also at the server side if you advertise it at all?

>
>
> 3. What should happen if the server doesn't support atomic pushes?
>
> It seems to me that there are four reasonable behaviors WRT atomic
> pushes. I'll give them tentative names for the purposes of this discussion:
>
> "force" -- Insist on an atomic push, and fail if the server does not
> support atomic pushes
>
> "true" -- Use atomic push if supported by the server. If not, emit a
> warning and fall back to non-atomic.

I am not sure about this one. This only makes sense if atomic were the default
and the user doesn't really care about atomicity and just wants to get things
to the remote. But for this kind of users we want the "auto" option,
so the user is
not bothered by some warning they don't care about.

If the user however had the intention of using atomic behavior (i.e.
has specified
--atomic explicitly), the user probably wants to have the "force" behavior.

>
> "auto" -- Use atomic push if supported by the server. If not, silently
> fall back to non-atomic.
>
> "false" -- Push non-atomically regardless of whether the server supports
> atomic pushes.
>
> To make it practical to set "atomic" as a universal default, we will
> have to be able to deal with servers that don't (yet) support atomic
> pushes. Therefore, we would want to use either "true" or "auto" (as
> opposed to "force") as the default.
>
> Even in such a case, it would be nice for the user to be able to
> suppress any warnings for servers that don't support atomic updates. So
> if "true" becomes the default, then we might want to support "auto" as well.
>
> (One could argue that once "atomic" becomes the default, then anybody
> who has to deal with an old server should just set "non-atomic" as the
> default for that server. But even aside from the inconvenience to the
> user, this is not a good alternative. A user who made that change
> wouldn't benefit from atomic pushes once the server is upgraded to
> support them.)
>
> The command-line "--atomic" option is proposed to request "force"
> behavior. On the one hand that makes sense; the user has explicitly
> requested an atomic push, so the command should fail if it is not
> possible. But on the other hand, if a particular server doesn't (yet)
> support atomic pushes, what recourse does the user have but to run the
> push again non-atomically? So it might be more expedient for the
> "--atomic" option to be equivalent to "true" instead of "force". I don't
> have a strong opinion on this either way.

It doesn't take much time to find out if the server supports atomic pushes
as you don't have to send the objects, but just wait until the server has
advertised its refs and capabilities. Then the user could rerun the command
line without having the --atomic flag set or even using --no-atomic.

Thanks for your detailed discussion as I wasn't thinking so far ahead yet.

> I'd like to discuss the big picture around this feature. I don't think
> that any of these questions are blockers, with the possible exception of
> the question of whether "--atomic" should fall back to non-atomic if the
> server doesn't support atomic pushes.

If we make atomic default, then we should have this kind of fallback, if not
explicitly suppressed (i.e. the user should experience as little
rejection as possible,
warnings/hints may be ok? If the user really wants to do it
atomically, make it so)

For the current state after this patch series when atomic is not default (yet),
we probably don't need the fall back as we only talk about the "force"
option with
this series.


>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Haggerty
> mhagger@alum.mit.edu
>

Re: [PATCH 6/7] push.c: add an --atomic argument

[Junio C Hamano]

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> I'd like to discuss the big picture around this feature. I don't think
> that any of these questions are blockers, with the possible exception of
> the question of whether "--atomic" should fall back to non-atomic if the
> server doesn't support atomic pushes.
>
> 1. Should "--atomic" someday become the default?
>
> You seem to imply that "--atomic" might become the default sometime in
> the future. (I realize that this patch series does not propose to change
> the default but let's talk about it anyway.) In the real world, the most
> common reason for an "--atomic" push to fail would be that somebody else
> has pushed to a branch since our last update, resulting in a non-ff
> error. Would I find out about such an error before or after I have
> transferred my objects to the server?

That question is pretty much rhetorical, as certain rejections you
cannot fundamentally implement without having the data at hand.

> If I only find out at the end of the transfer, then it could be a pretty
> frustrating experience pushing a lot of references to a server over a
> slow connection.

We'd like to have a long overdue protocol update for fetch and push
soonish anyawy (perhaps in the first half of 2015) and part of that
should include unified logic for common ancestor negotiation between
fetch and push [*1*].  We should be able to ease that with an
optimization similar to quickfetch done on the fetch side once that
happens.

> Even *if* "--atomic" becomes the default, we would certainly want to
> support a "--no-atomic" (or "--non-atomic"?) option to get the old
> behavior. It might be a good idea to add that option now, so that
> forward-looking script writers can start explicitly choosing "--atomic"
> vs. "--no-atomic".

Perhaps.  But on the other hand, pushing multiple refs at the same
time is a sign that they are related and need to go together.  The
reason why one but not others fails would be an indication that
there is somebody else pushing into the same repository and the
pusher and the other party are stepping on each other's toes, which
should be resolved primarily by inter-developer communication, not
with "--no-atomic" workaround.

> 2. Is this an option that users will want to specify via the command line?
>
> For scripts that want to insist on "atomic" updates, it is no problem to
> specify "--atomic" on the command line.
>
> But supposing that "--atomic" is a good default for some people, it
> would be awkward for them to have to specify it on every "git push"
> invocation. It therefore might be nice to have a configuration setting
> to choose whether "--atomic" is the default.
>
> Also (see above) it might be useful to set "--atomic" only for
> particular servers (for example, only for those to which you have a fast
> connection). This suggests that the "atomic/non-atomic" configuration
> should be settable on a per-remote basis.

I think you are hinting to have remote.atomicPush = {yes,no} that is
weaker than remote.$nick.atomicPush = {yes,no} or something like
that.  I agree that would be a good direction to go.

> 3. What should happen if the server doesn't support atomic pushes?

If you asked for atomic push explicitly and if the server cannot
support it, push should fail.

If the only reason we are doing atomic is because in some future we
flipped the default (i.e. no remote.*.atomicPush or --atomic option
from the command line), then it might be OK to continue with a
warning.

I however think that the automatic demotion is too much complexity
for such a simple option.  "Please be atomic if you can but I'd take
non-atomic one if you do not want to give me atomic one" that is
responded by "I'd do non-atomic then, as you are perfectly happy
without" is not very useful---such a pusher should just say "I
accept non-atomic", which is what "--no-atomic" is for.


[Footnotes]

*1* Two other big ones are syntax change to have an explicit
    extension packets instead of hiding the capability after NUL,
    and resolving the "who speaks first" issue.

[PATCH 7/7] t5543-atomic-push.sh: add basic tests for atomic pushes

[Stefan Beller]

This adds tests for the atomic push option.
The first four tests check if the atomic option works in
good conditions and the last three patches check if the atomic
option prevents any change to be pushed if just one ref cannot
be updated.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---

Notes:
    v6: the same as v2, so I can resend the whole series as v6
    
    v3 v4 v5 were skipped
    
    Changes v1 -> v2:
    > Please drop unused comments; they are distracting.
    
    ok
    
    > It is not wrong per-se, but haven't you already tested in
    > combination with --mirror in the previous test?
    
    I fixed the previous tests, so that there is no --mirror
    and --atomic together. There is still a first --mirror push
    for setup and a second with --atomic <branchnames> though
    
    > check_branches upstream master HEAD@{2} second HEAD~
    
    A similar function test_ref_upstream is introduced.
    
    > What's the value of this test?  Isn't it a non-fast-forward check
    > you already tested in the previous one?
    
    I messed up there. Originally I wanted to test the 2 different
    stages of rejection. A non-fast-forward check is done locally and
    we don't even try pushing. But I also want to test if we locally
    thing all is good, but the server refuses a ref to update.
    This is now done with the last test named 'atomic push obeys
    update hook preventing a branch to be pushed'. And that still fails.
    
    I'll investigate that, while still sending out the series for another
    review though.
    
    * Redone the test helper, there is test_ref_upstream now.
      This tests explicitely for SHA1 values of the ref.
      (It's needed in the last test for example. The git push fails,
      but still modifies the ref :/ )
    * checked all && chains and repaired them
    * sometimes make use of git -C <workdir>
    
    Notes v1:
    Originally Ronnie had a similar patch prepared. But as I added
    more tests and cleaned up the existing tests (e.g. use test_commit
    instead of "echo one >file && gitadd file && git commit -a -m 'one'",
    removal of dead code), the file has changed so much that I'd rather
    take ownership.

 t/t5543-atomic-push.sh | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 178 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 t/t5543-atomic-push.sh

diff --git a/t/t5543-atomic-push.sh b/t/t5543-atomic-push.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..b81a542
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t5543-atomic-push.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+test_description='pushing to a repository using the atomic push option'
+
+. ./test-lib.sh
+
+mk_repo_pair () {
+	rm -rf workbench upstream &&
+	test_create_repo upstream &&
+	test_create_repo workbench &&
+	(
+		cd upstream &&
+		git config receive.denyCurrentBranch warn
+	) &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		git remote add up ../upstream
+	)
+}
+
+# Compare the ref ($1) in upstream with a ref value from workbench ($2)
+# i.e. test_refs second HEAD@{2}
+test_refs () {
+	test $# = 2 &&
+	git -C upstream rev-parse --verify "$1" >expect &&
+	git -C workbench rev-parse --verify "$2" >actual &&
+	test_cmp expect actual
+}
+
+test_expect_success 'atomic push works for a single branch' '
+	mk_repo_pair &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		test_commit one &&
+		git push --mirror up &&
+		test_commit two &&
+		git push --atomic up master
+	) &&
+	test_refs master master
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'atomic push works for two branches' '
+	mk_repo_pair &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		test_commit one &&
+		git branch second &&
+		git push --mirror up &&
+		test_commit two &&
+		git checkout second &&
+		test_commit three &&
+		git push --atomic up master second
+	) &&
+	test_refs master master &&
+	test_refs second second
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'atomic push works in combination with --mirror' '
+	mk_repo_pair &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		test_commit one &&
+		git checkout -b second &&
+		test_commit two &&
+		git push --atomic --mirror up
+	) &&
+	test_refs master master &&
+	test_refs second second
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'atomic push works in combination with --force' '
+	mk_repo_pair &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		test_commit one &&
+		git branch second master &&
+		test_commit two_a &&
+		git checkout second &&
+		test_commit two_b &&
+		test_commit three_b &&
+		test_commit four &&
+		git push --mirror up &&
+		# The actual test is below
+		git checkout master &&
+		test_commit three_a &&
+		git checkout second &&
+		git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
+		git push --force --atomic up master second
+	) &&
+	test_refs master master &&
+	test_refs second second
+'
+
+# set up two branches where master can be pushed but second can not
+# (non-fast-forward). Since second can not be pushed the whole operation
+# will fail and leave master untouched.
+test_expect_success 'atomic push fails if one branch fails' '
+	mk_repo_pair &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		test_commit one &&
+		git checkout -b second master &&
+		test_commit two &&
+		test_commit three &&
+		test_commit four &&
+		git push --mirror up &&
+		git reset --hard HEAD~2 &&
+		test_commit five &&
+		git checkout master &&
+		test_commit six &&
+		test_must_fail git push --atomic --all up
+	) &&
+	test_refs master HEAD@{7} &&
+	test_refs second HEAD@{4}
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'atomic push fails if one tag fails remotely' '
+	# prepare the repo
+	mk_repo_pair &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		test_commit one &&
+		git checkout -b second master &&
+		test_commit two &&
+		git push --mirror up
+	) &&
+	# a third party modifies the server side:
+	(
+		cd upstream &&
+		git checkout second &&
+		git tag test_tag second
+	) &&
+	# see if we can now push both branches.
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		git checkout master &&
+		test_commit three &&
+		git checkout second &&
+		test_commit four &&
+		git tag test_tag &&
+		test_must_fail git push --tags --atomic up master second
+	) &&
+	test_refs master HEAD@{3} &&
+	test_refs second HEAD@{1}
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'atomic push obeys update hook preventing a branch to be pushed' '
+	mk_repo_pair &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		test_commit one &&
+		git checkout -b second master &&
+		test_commit two &&
+		git push --mirror up
+	) &&
+	(
+		cd upstream &&
+		HOOKDIR="$(git rev-parse --git-dir)/hooks" &&
+		HOOK="$HOOKDIR/update" &&
+		mkdir -p "$HOOKDIR" &&
+		write_script "$HOOK" <<-\EOF
+			# only allow update to master from now on
+			test "$1" = "refs/heads/master"
+		EOF
+	) &&
+	(
+		cd workbench &&
+		git checkout master &&
+		test_commit three &&
+		git checkout second &&
+		test_commit four &&
+		test_must_fail git push --atomic up master second
+	) &&
+	test_refs master HEAD@{3} &&
+	test_refs second HEAD@{1}
+'
+
+test_done
-- 
2.2.1.62.g3f15098

Re: [PATCHv6 0/7] atomic pushes

[Junio C Hamano]

Will queue; thanks for a pleasant read.