Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

integrate gix-status #1285

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 14, 2024
Merged

integrate gix-status #1285

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 14, 2024

Conversation

Byron
Copy link
Member

@Byron Byron commented Feb 11, 2024

Based on #1252


diff-correctness → gix-status → gix reset


Improve gix status to the point where it's suitable for use in reset functinoality.
Leads to a proper worktree reset implementation, eventually leading to a high-level reset similar to how git supports it.

Architecture

The reason this PR deals quite a bit with gix status is that for a safe implementation of reset() we need to be sure that the files we would want to touch don't don't carry modifications or are untracked files. In order to know what would need to be done, we have to diff the current-index with target-index. The set of files to touch can then be used to lookup information provided by git-status, like worktree modifications, index modifications, and untracked files, to know if we can proceed or not. Here is also where the reset-modes would affect the outcome, i.e. what to change and how.

This is a very modular approach which facilitates testing and understanding of what otherwise would be a very complex algorithm. Having a set of changes as output also allows to one day parallelize applying these changes.

This leaves us in a situation where the current checkout() implementation wants to become a fastpath for situations where the reset involves an empty tree as source (i.e. create everything and overwrite local changes).

On the way to reset() it's a valid choice to warm up more with the matter by improving on the current gix status implementation and assure correctness of what's there, which currently doesn't seem to be the case in comparison. Further, implementing gix status similarly to git status should be made possible.

Tasks

  • polish gix clean and improve pathspec handling, i.e. *foo* kind of matches every directory
  • minimal integration of dirwalk() into gix status to learn more about it (and its performance)
  • Integrate untracked and ignored files with rename tracking of index-worktree diffs
  • status in gix crate with index-worktree
  • diff index with index to learn what we would want to do in the worktree, or alternatively,
    diff tree with index (with reverse-diff functionality to simulate diff of index with tree), for better performance as it
    would avoid having to allocate a whole index even though we are only interested in a diff.
    • Must include rename tracking.
  • how to make diff results available from status with all transformations applied, to allow user to obtain diffs of any kind?

Status Enables

Next PR: Reset

  • reset() that checks if it's allowed to perform a worktree modification is allowed, or if an entry should be skipped. That way we can postpone safety checks like --hard

Postponed

What follows is important for resets, but won't be needed for cargo worktree resets.

  • a way to expand sparse dirs (but figure out if this is truly always necessary) - probably not, unless sparse dirs can be empty, but even then no expansion is needed
    • wire it up in gix index entries to optionally expand sparse entries
  • gix status with actual submodule support - needs status in gix (crate) effectively
  • gix status with actual conflict support

Research

  • Ignored files are considered expandable and can be overwritten on reset
  • How to integrate submodules - probably easy to answer once gix status can deal a little better with submodules. Even though in this case a lot of submodule-related information is needed for a complete reset, probably only doable by a higher-level caller which orchestrates it.
  • How to deal with various modes like merge and keep? How to control refresh? Maybe partial (only the files we touch), and full, to also update the files we don't touch as part of status? Maybe it's part of status if that is run before.
  • Worthwhile to make explicit the difference between git reset and git checkout in terms of HEAD modifications. With the former changing HEADs referent, and the latter changing HEAD itself.
  • figure out how this relates to the current checkout() method as technically that's a reset --hard with optional overwrite check. Could it be rolled into one, with pathspec support added?
    • just keep them separate until it's clear that reset() performs just as well, which is unlikely as there is more overhead. But maybe it's not worth to maintain two versions over it. But if so, one should probably rename it.
  • for git status: what about rename tracking? It's available for tree-diffs and quite complex on its own. Probably only needs HEAD-vs-index rename tracking. No, also can have worktree rename tracking, even though it's hard to imagine how this can be fast unless it's tightly integrated with untracked-files handling. This screams for a generalization of the tracking code though as the testing and implementation is complex, but should be generalisable.

Re-learn

  • pathspecs normalize themselves to turn from any kind of specification into repo-root relative patterns.
  • attribute/ignore file sources are naturally relative to the root of the repo, which remains relative (i.e. can be .. and that root will be always be used to open files like ../.gitignore, which is useful for display to the user)

Even though wildcard pathspecs shouldn't prevent recursion into direcotries,
we should not end up declaring them as matches even though nothing inside matched.
@Byron Byron merged commit b8def77 into main Feb 14, 2024
18 checks passed
This was referenced Feb 14, 2024
EliahKagan added a commit to EliahKagan/gitoxide that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
This change removes the `-v` option from the one `cp` invocation in
`test/fixtures/many.sh`, the one fixture script that uses it. This
is roughly analogous to the preceding removal of `-v` from the one
`mv` invocation that used that. But while `rm -v` is standardized
but only recently, `cp -v` is not standard. Even POSIX 1003.1-2024
does not require `cp` to recognize `-v`:

- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/cp.html

See the preceding commit for general considerations, advantages and
disadvantages, and alterntive approaches. As there, this currently
just drops the `-v` without replacing it with anything, based on
the idea that printing the list of files being operated on (here,
copied) may not be important.

- That assumption may be less well-founded here, since the affected
  command, introduced in 482d6f3 (GitoxideLabs#1285), does *not* have other
  nearby `cp` commands that are conceptually related but omit `-v`.

- But, unlike there, it may be reasonable to consider the `-v` here
  to be a (minor) bug, since it is not standardized but it appears
  in test fixture code that seems intended to run all targets.
EliahKagan added a commit to EliahKagan/gitoxide that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
This change removes the `-v` option from the one `cp` invocation in
`test/fixtures/many.sh`, the one fixture script that uses it. This
is roughly analogous to the preceding removal of `-v` from the one
`mv` invocation that used that. But while `rm -v` is standardized
but only recently, `cp -v` is not standard. Even POSIX 1003.1-2024
does not require `cp` to recognize `-v`:

- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/cp.html

See the preceding commit for general considerations, advantages and
disadvantages, and alterntive approaches. As there, this currently
just drops the `-v` without replacing it with anything, based on
the idea that printing the list of files being operated on (here,
copied) may not be important.

- That assumption may be less well-founded here, since the affected
  command, introduced in 482d6f3 (GitoxideLabs#1285), does *not* have other
  nearby `cp` commands that are conceptually related but omit `-v`.

- But, unlike there, it may be reasonable to consider the `-v` here
  to be a (minor) bug, since it is not standardized but it appears
  in test fixture code that seems intended to run all targets.
EliahKagan added a commit to EliahKagan/gitoxide that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
This change removes the `-v` option from the one `cp` invocation in
`gix-dir/tests/fixtures/many.sh`, the one fixture script that uses
it.

This is roughly analogous to the preceding removal of `-v` from the
one `mv` invocation that used that, and both fixture scripts are
heavily used due to being used in multiple tests and due to being
intentionally re-run even when `GIX_TEST_IGNORE_ARCHIVES` is not
set.

But while `rm -v` is standardized but only recently, `cp -v` is not
standard. Even POSIX 1003.1-2024 does not require `cp` to recognize
`-v`:

- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/cp.html

See the preceding commit for general considerations, advantages and
disadvantages, and alterntive approaches. As there, this currently
just drops the `-v` without replacing it with anything, based on
the idea that printing the list of files being operated on (here,
copied) may not be important.

- That assumption may be less well-founded here, since the affected
  command, introduced in 482d6f3 (GitoxideLabs#1285), does *not* have other
  nearby `cp` commands that are conceptually related but omit `-v`.

- But, unlike there, it may be reasonable to consider the `-v` here
  to be a (minor) bug, since it is not standardized but it appears
  in test fixture code that seems intended to run all targets.

Taken together, this and the preceding commit allow 106 formerly
failing tests to pass, on the OmniOS system I used for testing.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant