From: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>,
Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git status: small difference between stating whole repository and small subdirectory
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:45:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d3991gyg.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120220151134.GA13135@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:11:34 -0500")
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
> index 8be3f6c..e8aedea 100644
> --- a/unpack-trees.c
> +++ b/unpack-trees.c
> @@ -1135,6 +1135,7 @@ int unpack_trees(unsigned len, struct tree_desc *t, struct unpack_trees_options
> }
> }
>
> + o->result.cache_tree = o->src_index->cache_tree;
> o->src_index = NULL;
> ret = check_updates(o) ? (-2) : 0;
> if (o->dst_index)
Brilliant. I know I'm stealing Junio's punchline, but please make it so
:-)
Browsing around in history, it seems that this was silently broken by
34110cd (Make 'unpack_trees()' have a separate source and destination
index, 2008-03-06), which introduced the distinction between source and
destination index. Before that they were the same, so the cache tree
would have been updated correctly.
> It makes "git checkout" with no changes just work (since we preserve the
> cache tree, and it doesn't need updated). It makes something like "git
> checkout HEAD^" work, keeping most of the cache-tree intact, but
> invalidating trees containing paths that were modified.
Great. Here's a test you could use. It's a bit noisy because the
shallow in test_shallow_cache_tree no longer made any sense, but I think
it tests what we want to see.
diff --git i/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh w/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
index 6c33e28..5706305 100755
--- i/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
+++ w/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
@@ -16,14 +16,16 @@ cmp_cache_tree () {
# We don't bother with actually checking the SHA1:
# test-dump-cache-tree already verifies that all existing data is
# correct.
-test_shallow_cache_tree () {
- printf "SHA (%d entries, 0 subtrees)\n" $(git ls-files|wc -l) >expect &&
+test_cache_tree () {
+ printf "SHA (%d entries, 1 subtrees)\n" $(git ls-files|wc -l) >expect &&
+ printf "SHA sub/ (%d entries, 0 subtrees)\n" $(git ls-files sub|wc -l) >>expect &&
cmp_cache_tree expect
}
test_invalid_cache_tree () {
- echo "invalid (0 subtrees)" >expect &&
- printf "SHA #(ref) (%d entries, 0 subtrees)\n" $(git ls-files|wc -l) >>expect &&
+ echo "invalid (1 subtrees)" >expect &&
+ printf "SHA #(ref) (%d entries, 1 subtrees)\n" $(git ls-files|wc -l) >>expect &&
+ printf "SHA sub/ (%d entries, 0 subtrees)\n" $(git ls-files sub|wc -l) >>expect &&
cmp_cache_tree expect
}
@@ -33,13 +35,16 @@ test_no_cache_tree () {
}
test_expect_failure 'initial commit has cache-tree' '
+ mkdir sub &&
+ echo bar > sub/bar &&
+ git add sub/bar &&
test_commit foo &&
- test_shallow_cache_tree
+ test_cache_tree
'
test_expect_success 'read-tree HEAD establishes cache-tree' '
git read-tree HEAD &&
- test_shallow_cache_tree
+ test_cache_tree
'
test_expect_success 'git-add invalidates cache-tree' '
@@ -59,7 +64,7 @@ test_expect_success 'update-index invalidates cache-tree' '
test_expect_success 'write-tree establishes cache-tree' '
test-scrap-cache-tree &&
git write-tree &&
- test_shallow_cache_tree
+ test_cache_tree
'
test_expect_success 'test-scrap-cache-tree works' '
@@ -70,24 +75,39 @@ test_expect_success 'test-scrap-cache-tree works' '
test_expect_success 'second commit has cache-tree' '
test_commit bar &&
- test_shallow_cache_tree
+ test_cache_tree
'
test_expect_success 'reset --hard gives cache-tree' '
test-scrap-cache-tree &&
git reset --hard &&
- test_shallow_cache_tree
+ test_cache_tree
'
test_expect_success 'reset --hard without index gives cache-tree' '
rm -f .git/index &&
git reset --hard &&
- test_shallow_cache_tree
+ test_cache_tree
'
-test_expect_failure 'checkout gives cache-tree' '
+test_expect_success 'checkout HEAD leaves cache-tree intact' '
+ git read-tree HEAD &&
+ git checkout HEAD &&
+ test_cache_tree
+'
+
+# NEEDSWORK: only one of these two can succeed. The second is there
+# because it would be the better result.
+test_expect_success 'checkout HEAD^ correctly invalidates cache-tree' '
+ git checkout HEAD^ &&
+ test_invalid_cache_tree
+'
+
+test_expect_failure 'checkout HEAD^ gives full cache-tree' '
+ git checkout master &&
+ git read-tree HEAD &&
git checkout HEAD^ &&
- test_shallow_cache_tree
+ test_cache_tree
'
test_done
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-20 18:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-10 9:42 git status: small difference between stating whole repository and small subdirectory Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-10 12:33 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-10 13:46 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-10 14:37 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-13 16:54 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-10 16:18 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-14 11:34 ` Thomas Rast
2012-02-15 8:57 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-15 11:01 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-15 15:14 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-16 13:22 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-15 19:03 ` Jeff King
2012-02-16 13:37 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-16 14:05 ` Thomas Rast
2012-02-16 20:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-17 16:55 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-16 19:20 ` Jeff King
2012-02-17 17:19 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-17 20:37 ` Jeff King
2012-02-17 22:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-17 22:29 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 8:25 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-20 14:06 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 14:09 ` Thomas Rast
2012-02-20 14:36 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-20 14:39 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 15:11 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 18:45 ` Thomas Rast [this message]
2012-02-20 20:35 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 22:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-20 22:41 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 23:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-21 7:21 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-02-20 20:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-20 20:17 ` Jeff King
2012-02-21 14:45 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-21 19:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-22 2:12 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-22 2:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-22 12:54 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-22 13:17 ` Thomas Rast
2012-02-22 10:34 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-22 3:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-04-10 15:16 ` Piotr Krukowiecki
2012-04-10 16:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-04-10 18:00 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 19:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-20 19:59 ` Thomas Rast
2012-02-20 14:16 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2012-02-20 14:22 ` Jeff King
2012-02-20 19:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-20 20:09 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87d3991gyg.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch \
--to=trast@inf.ethz.ch \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).