Repository navigation
checkout: don't try to calculate oid for directories - #3931
Merged
ethomson merged 1 commit intoOct 2, 2016
Merged
ethomson merged 1 commit into
ethomson merged 1 commit into
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Sorry, something went wrong.
When trying to determine if we can safely overwrite an existing workdir item, we may need to calculate the oid for the workdir item to determine if its identical to the old side (and eligible for removal). We previously did this regardless of the type of entry in the workdir; if it was a directory, we would open(2) it and then try to read(2). The read(2) of a directory fails on many platforms, so we would treat it as if it were unmodified and continue to perform the checkout. On FreeBSD, you _can_ read(2) a directory, so this pattern failed. We would calculate an oid from the data read and determine that the directory was modified and would therefore generate a checkout conflict. This reliance on read(2) is silly (and was most likely accidentally giving us the behavior we wanted), we should be explicit about the directory test.
pks-t
reviewed
Sep 19, 2016
Comment thread
src/checkout.c
|
|
||
| /* if the workdir item is a directory, it cannot be a modified file */ | ||
| if (S_ISDIR(wditem->mode)) | ||
| return false; |
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we consider this as modified if !S_ISDIR(baseitem->mode)? E.g. something like
if (S_ISDIR(wditem->mode))
return !S_ISDIR(baseitem->mode);
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That can't happen - we only process files in the checkout loop, not folders. (We'll make intermediate folders if we need them.) So we'll never see a baseitem (or newitem) that is a folder.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When trying to determine if we can safely overwrite an existing workdir item, we may need to calculate the oid for the workdir item to determine if its identical to the old side (and eligible for removal).
We previously did this regardless of the type of entry in the workdir; if it was a directory, we would open(2) it and then try to read(2). The read(2) of a directory fails on many platforms, so we would treat it as if it were unmodified and continue to perform the checkout.
On FreeBSD, you can read(2) a directory, so this pattern failed. We would calculate an oid from the data read and determine that the directory was modified and would therefore generate a checkout conflict.
This reliance on read(2) is silly (and was most likely accidentally giving us the behavior we wanted), we should be explicit about the directory test.
Fixes #3911