Apply a few leftover improvements from the review of ad5df6b782
(upload-pack.c: fix filter spec quoting bug).
1. Instead of enumerating objects reachable from HEAD, enumerate all
reachable objects, because HEAD has not special significance in this
test.
2. Instead of relying on the knowledge that "? in rev-list output
means partial clone", explicitly verify that there are no blobs with
cat-file.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Vosmaer <jacob@gitlab.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Fix a bug in upload-pack.c that occurs when you combine partial
clone and uploadpack.packObjectsHook. You can reproduce it as
follows:
git clone -u 'git -c uploadpack.allowfilter '\
'-c uploadpack.packobjectshook=env '\
'upload-pack' --filter=blob:none --no-local \
src.git dst.git
Be careful with the line endings because this has a long quoted
string as the -u argument.
The error I get when I run this is:
Cloning into '/tmp/broken'...
remote: fatal: invalid filter-spec ''blob:none''
error: git upload-pack: git-pack-objects died with error.
fatal: git upload-pack: aborting due to possible repository corruption on the remote side.
remote: aborting due to possible repository corruption on the remote side.
fatal: early EOF
fatal: index-pack failed
The problem is caused by unneeded quoting.
This bug was already present in 10ac85c785 (upload-pack: add object
filtering for partial clone, 2017-12-08) when the server side filter
support was introduced. In fact, in 10ac85c785 this was broken
regardless of uploadpack.packObjectsHook. Then in 0b6069fe0a
(fetch-pack: test support excluding large blobs, 2017-12-08) the
quoting was removed but only behind a conditional that depends on
whether uploadpack.packObjectsHook is set.
Because uploadpack.packObjectsHook is apparently rarely used, nobody
noticed the problematic quoting could still happen.
Remove the conditional quoting and add a test for partial clone in
t5544-pack-objects-hook.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Vosmaer <jacob@gitlab.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When upload-pack serves a client request, it turns to
pack-objects to do the heavy lifting of creating a
packfile. There's no easy way to intercept the call to
pack-objects, but there are a few good reasons to want to do
so:
1. If you're debugging a client or server issue with
fetching, you may want to store a copy of the generated
packfile.
2. If you're gathering data from real-world fetches for
performance analysis or debugging, storing a copy of
the arguments and stdin lets you replay the pack
generation at your leisure.
3. You may want to insert a caching layer around
pack-objects; it is the most CPU- and memory-intensive
part of serving a fetch, and its output is a pure
function[1] of its input, making it an ideal place to
consolidate identical requests.
This patch adds a simple "hook" interface to intercept calls
to pack-objects. The new test demonstrates how it can be
used for debugging (using it for caching is a
straightforward extension; the tricky part is writing the
actual caching layer).
This hook is unlike the normal hook scripts found in the
"hooks/" directory of a repository. Because we promise that
upload-pack is safe to run in an untrusted repository, we
cannot execute arbitrary code or commands found in the
repository (neither in hooks/, nor in the config). So
instead, this hook is triggered from a config variable that
is explicitly ignored in the per-repo config.
The config variable holds the actual shell command to run as
the hook. Another approach would be to simply treat it as a
boolean: "should I respect the upload-pack hooks in this
repo?", and then run the script from "hooks/" as we usually
do. However, that isn't as flexible; there's no way to run a
hook approved by the site administrator (e.g., in
"/etc/gitconfig") on a repository whose contents are not
trusted. The approach taken by this patch is more
fine-grained, if a little less conventional for git hooks
(it does behave similar to other configured commands like
diff.external, etc).
[1] Pack-objects isn't _actually_ a pure function. Its
output depends on the exact packing of the object
database, and if multi-threading is used for delta
compression, can even differ racily. But for the
purposes of caching, that's OK; of the many possible
outputs for a given input, it is sufficient only that we
output one of them.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Jacob Vosmaer
Jeff King