Skip to content

Fix fetch.writeCommitGraph failure first fetch #2383

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 2, 2019

Conversation

dscho
Copy link
Member

@dscho dscho commented Nov 1, 2019

This is a direct relative of gitgitgadget#415, with the intention of merging it in time for Git for Windows v2.24.0.

While dogfooding, Johannes found a bug in the fetch.writeCommitGraph
config behavior. His example initially happened during a clone with
--recurse-submodules, we found that this happens with the first fetch
after cloning a repository that contains a submodule:

	$ git clone <url> test
	$ cd test
	$ git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true fetch origin
	Computing commit graph generation numbers: 100% (12/12), done.
	BUG: commit-graph.c:886: missing parent <hash1> for commit <hash2>
	Aborted (core dumped)

In the repo I had cloned, there were really 60 commits to scan, but
only 12 were in the list to write when calling
compute_generation_numbers(). A commit in the list expects to see a
parent, but that parent is not in the list.

A follow-up will fix the bug, but first we create a test that
demonstrates the problem. This test must be careful about an existing
commit-graph file, since GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH=1 will cause the repo we
are cloning to already have one. This then prevents the incremtnal
commit-graph write during the first 'git fetch'.

Helped-by: Jeff King <[email protected]>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
Helped-by: Szeder Gábor <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
The previous commit includes a failing test for an issue around
fetch.writeCommitGraph and fetching in a repo with a submodule. Here, we
fix that bug and set the test to "test_expect_success".

The problem arises with this set of commands when the remote repo at
<url> has a submodule. Note that --recurse-submodules is not needed to
demonstrate the bug.

	$ git clone <url> test
	$ cd test
	$ git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true fetch origin
	Computing commit graph generation numbers: 100% (12/12), done.
	BUG: commit-graph.c:886: missing parent <hash1> for commit <hash2>
	Aborted (core dumped)

As an initial fix, I converted the code in builtin/fetch.c that calls
write_commit_graph_reachable() to instead launch a "git commit-graph
write --reachable --split" process. That code worked, but is not how we
want the feature to work long-term.

That test did demonstrate that the issue must be something to do with
internal state of the 'git fetch' process.

The write_commit_graph() method in commit-graph.c ensures the commits we
plan to write are "closed under reachability" using close_reachable().
This method walks from the input commits, and uses the UNINTERESTING
flag to mark which commits have already been visited. This allows the
walk to take O(N) time, where N is the number of commits, instead of
O(P) time, where P is the number of paths. (The number of paths can be
exponential in the number of commits.)

However, the UNINTERESTING flag is used in lots of places in the
codebase. This flag usually means some barrier to stop a commit walk,
such as in revision-walking to compare histories. It is not often
cleared after the walk completes because the starting points of those
walks do not have the UNINTERESTING flag, and clear_commit_marks() would
stop immediately.

This is happening during a 'git fetch' call with a remote. The fetch
negotiation is comparing the remote refs with the local refs and marking
some commits as UNINTERESTING.

I tested running clear_commit_marks_many() to clear the UNINTERESTING
flag inside close_reachable(), but the tips did not have the flag, so
that did nothing.

It turns out that the calculate_changed_submodule_paths() method is at
fault. Thanks, Peff, for pointing out this detail! More specifically,
for each submodule, the collect_changed_submodules() runs a revision
walk to essentially do file-history on the list of submodules. That
revision walk marks commits UNININTERESTING if they are simplified away
by not changing the submodule.

Instead, I finally arrived on the conclusion that I should use a flag
that is not used in any other part of the code. In commit-reach.c, a
number of flags were defined for commit walk algorithms. The REACHABLE
flag seemed like it made the most sense, and it seems it was not
actually used in the file. The REACHABLE flag was used in early versions
of commit-reach.c, but was removed by 4fbcca4 (commit-reach: make
can_all_from_reach... linear, 2018-07-20).

Add the REACHABLE flag to commit-graph.c and use it instead of
UNINTERESTING in close_reachable(). This fixes the bug in manual
testing.

Reported-by: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
Helped-by: Jeff King <[email protected]>
Helped-by: Szeder Gábor <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
@dscho dscho requested a review from derrickstolee November 1, 2019 16:48
@dscho
Copy link
Member Author

dscho commented Nov 1, 2019

@derrickstolee what do you think, is this ready-to-merge?

@dscho dscho added this to the Next release milestone Nov 1, 2019
@dscho
Copy link
Member Author

dscho commented Nov 2, 2019

I'll just make an executive decision and merge this.

@dscho dscho merged commit 44c1590 into git-for-windows:master Nov 2, 2019
git-for-windows-ci pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2019
Fix `fetch.writeCommitGraph` failure first fetch
git-for-windows-ci pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2019
Fix `fetch.writeCommitGraph` failure first fetch
git-for-windows-ci pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2019
Fix `fetch.writeCommitGraph` failure first fetch
git-for-windows-ci pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2019
Fix `fetch.writeCommitGraph` failure first fetch
@dscho dscho mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2019
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.

2 participants