Junio C Hamano writes: > Karthik Nayak writes: > >> From: Karthik Nayak >> >> In the previous commits, we added the required base for adding symref >> commands to the '--stdin' mode provided by 'git-update-ref(1)'. Using >> them, add a new 'symref-verify' command to verify symrefs. >> >> The 'symref-verify' command allows users to verify if a provided >> contains the provided without changing the . If >> is not provided, the command will verify that the >> doesn't exist. Since we're checking for symbolic refs, this command will >> only work with the 'no-deref' mode. This is because any dereferenced >> symbolic ref will point to an object and not a ref and the regular >> 'verify' command can be used in such situations. > > All makes sense, but a naïve reader may find it helpful if you > explained why having "verify" command is a good idea in the first > place ("I can just do 'git symoblic-ref' to read the current value, > and see if it is what I expect"). Presumably the value of "verify" > is that you can have it in a transaction and fail other operations > in the same transaction if the symref moved from what you expected > it to point at? > I would say none of the commits drive this point, and I would go ahead and add something on these lines to each of them. I think it would add good value to readers. >> Add and use `ref_update_is_null_new_value`, a helper function which is >> used to check if there is a new_value in a reference update. The new >> value could either be a symref target `new_target` or a OID `new_oid`. >> We also add tests to test the command in both the regular stdin mode and >> also with the '-z' flag. > > This looks out of place, primarily because the helper function is > *NOT* used in this step. Without any actual user, and with the name > that says only what it checks without hinting why a caller may want > to check the condition it checks, it is hard to guess if it is a > good idea to have such a helper. > I think over the revision, its usage from this commit was removed. It makes sense to move it to a commit where its used, I'll do that. > "If a ref_update object specifies no new-oid and no new-target, it > is not about updating but just validating" is how the callers are > expected to use it, then instead of is_null_new_value that says > what it checks, something like is_verify_only that says what the > caller may want to use it for would be a more friendly name for > readers and future developers. This is true for the old-oid and old-target. That is, when they are set to null, we're validating. With the new-oid and new-target, if they're null, it usually signifies deletion. We could rename it to 'is_delete_only', but that would also need checking the 'REF_HAVE_NEW' flag. So we could ideally change it to ``` int ref_update_is_delete_only(struct ref_update *update) { return (update->flags & REF_HAVE_NEW) && !update->new_target && is_null_oid(&update->new_oid); } ``` I'm okay with making this change. >> @@ -297,11 +320,47 @@ static void parse_cmd_verify(struct ref_transaction *transaction, >> die("verify %s: extra input: %s", refname, next); >> >> if (ref_transaction_verify(transaction, refname, &old_oid, >> - update_flags, &err)) >> + NULL, update_flags, &err)) >> >> update_flags = default_flags; >> free(refname); >> strbuf_release(&err); >> } > > The only damage by this patch to parse_cmd_verify() is that > ref_transaction_verify() gained another parameter NULL, but with the > default "--diff-algorithm=myers" algorithm, it is very hard to see. > > The "--patience" algorithm does a much beter job on this hunk. > > And the following function is entirely new. > >> +static void parse_cmd_symref_verify(struct ref_transaction *transaction, >> + const char *next, const char *end) >> +{ >> + struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT; >> + struct object_id old_oid; >> + char *refname, *old_target; >> + >> + if (!(update_flags & REF_NO_DEREF)) >> + die("symref-verify: cannot operate with deref mode"); >> + >> + refname = parse_refname(&next); >> + if (!refname) >> + die("symref-verify: missing "); >> + >> + /* >> + * old_ref is optional, but we want to differentiate between >> + * a NULL and zero value. >> + */ >> + old_target = parse_next_refname(&next); >> + if (!old_target) >> + old_oid = *null_oid(); > > In many existing code paths, we do not do structure assignment like > this. Instead we do > > oidcpy(&old_oid, null_oid()); > > We can see an existing example in a common context in a hunk for > refs.c in this patch. > Yeah, makes sense to switch this. Will do. >> + if (*next != line_termination) >> + die("symref-verify %s: extra input: %s", refname, next); >> + >> + if (ref_transaction_verify(transaction, refname, >> + old_target ? NULL : &old_oid, >> + old_target, update_flags, &err)) >> + die("%s", err.buf); > > Are static analyzers smart enough to notice that we will not be > using old_oid uninitialized here? Just wondering. Yup, at least the clang LSP server seems to detect and not bug me about it. > Anyway. This ensures ref_transaction_verify() gets either > old_target or old_oid, but never both at the same time. The caller > to ref_transaction_verify() in the previous function passed NULL for > old_target but it always had a non-NULL old_oid so that is perfectly > fine. > >> + update_flags = default_flags; >> + free(refname); >> + free(old_target); >> + strbuf_release(&err); >> +} > >> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c >> index 060a31616d..0e1013b5ab 100644 >> --- a/refs.c >> +++ b/refs.c >> @@ -1217,6 +1217,8 @@ void ref_transaction_free(struct ref_transaction *transaction) >> >> for (i = 0; i < transaction->nr; i++) { >> free(transaction->updates[i]->msg); >> + free((void *)transaction->updates[i]->old_target); >> + free((void *)transaction->updates[i]->new_target); >> free(transaction->updates[i]); >> } >> free(transaction->updates); >> @@ -1247,9 +1249,13 @@ struct ref_update *ref_transaction_add_update( >> >> update->flags = flags; >> >> - if (flags & REF_HAVE_NEW) >> + if (new_target) >> + update->new_target = xstrdup(new_target); >> + if (old_target) >> + update->old_target = xstrdup(old_target); > > Presumably "update" structure, when freshly initialized, has NULL in > both of these _target members? Otherwise ref_transaction_free() > would get in trouble, so double checking. > This is a good point. My understanding was that FLEX_ALLOC_MEM should set everything to 0. >> + if (new_oid && flags & REF_HAVE_NEW) >> oidcpy(&update->new_oid, new_oid); >> - if (flags & REF_HAVE_OLD) >> + if (old_oid && flags & REF_HAVE_OLD) >> oidcpy(&update->old_oid, old_oid); > > Since we can ask to work on a symbolic ref, new_oid / old_oid can be > NULL when REF_HAVE_NEW / REF_HAVE_OLD bit is on for _target members. > > Makes me wonder if the code becomes easier to follow if the flag > bits are split into four (_NEW -> _NEW_OID + _NEW_TARGET), but let's > not worry about that for now. > The intersection of this is quite low currently, so I'm not really sure if there's added benefit. I did start that way before, but perhaps with the iterations in the last few version, maybe it makes the code simpler. >> @@ -1286,6 +1292,7 @@ int ref_transaction_update(struct ref_transaction *transaction, >> flags &= REF_TRANSACTION_UPDATE_ALLOWED_FLAGS; >> >> flags |= (new_oid ? REF_HAVE_NEW : 0) | (old_oid ? REF_HAVE_OLD : 0); >> + flags |= (new_target ? REF_HAVE_NEW : 0) | (old_target ? REF_HAVE_OLD : 0); > >> @@ -1325,14 +1332,17 @@ int ref_transaction_delete(struct ref_transaction *transaction, >> int ref_transaction_verify(struct ref_transaction *transaction, >> const char *refname, >> const struct object_id *old_oid, >> + const char *old_target, >> unsigned int flags, >> struct strbuf *err) >> { >> - if (!old_oid) >> - BUG("verify called with old_oid set to NULL"); >> + if (!old_target && !old_oid) >> + BUG("verify called with old_oid and old_target set to NULL"); > > Is it normal if you get _both_ set, or is it equally a BUG()? > The parse_*_verify() codepaths we saw earlier both made sure > only one of the two is non-NULL, and it is unclear what should > happen if both are non-NULL. > It is a bug and this is caught in `ref_transaction_add_update`. Introduced in the first patch of the series. >> + if (old_target && !(flags & REF_NO_DEREF)) >> + BUG("verify cannot operate on symrefs with deref mode"); >> return ref_transaction_update(transaction, refname, >> NULL, old_oid, >> - NULL, NULL, >> + NULL, old_target, >> flags, NULL, err); >> } > > So this queues an ref_update object whose .new_oid and .new_target > are NULL, and .old_oid and .old_target are what the caller gave us > to check. The NULLs in .new* members hopefully do not mean "delete > this thing" ;-) > So the 'new_oid' being set to zero should be the delete this thing queue. >> @@ -2349,6 +2359,12 @@ static int run_transaction_hook(struct ref_transaction *transaction, >> for (i = 0; i < transaction->nr; i++) { >> struct ref_update *update = transaction->updates[i]; >> >> + /* >> + * Skip reference transaction for symbolic refs. >> + */ >> + if (update->new_target || update->old_target) >> + continue; > > Is that a final design, or will the hooks have a chance to interfere? > The last patch adds hook support. >> diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c >> index 2420dac2aa..53197fa3af 100644 >> --- a/refs/files-backend.c >> +++ b/refs/files-backend.c >> @@ -2425,6 +2425,37 @@ static const char *original_update_refname(struct ref_update *update) >> return update->refname; >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Check whether the REF_HAVE_OLD and old_target values stored in >> + * update are consistent with ref, which is the symbolic reference's >> + * current value. If everything is OK, return 0; otherwise, write an >> + * error message to err and return -1. >> + */ >> +static int check_old_target(struct ref_update *update, char *ref, >> + struct strbuf *err) >> +{ >> + if (!(update->flags & REF_HAVE_OLD) || >> + !strcmp(update->old_target, ref)) >> + return 0; > > Earlier on the assignment side for "update" structure we saw above, > the guard was (old_target && flags & REF_HAVE_OLD), but here we > assume old_target is valid, which feels a bit asymmetric. > > Yes, I can see that the caller does not call us when !old_target, > but still... Perhaps > > if ((update->flags & REF_HAVE_OLD) && !update->old_target) > BUG(...); > I will add something like this. > or something? Or alternatively, perhaps !!update->old_target should > be the only thing we should check and ignore REF_HAVE_OLD bit? I am > not sure, but it smells like that the non-NULL-ness of old_target is > the only thing that matters (if it is not NULL, very early in the > control flow somebody would have set REF_HAVE_OLD bit to flags, no?). > > It brings me back to my earlier question. Does REF_HAVE_OLD bit > serve a useful purpose in this code? > I checked and it doesn't, it can be removed from usage in this code. Will cleanup this part. >> + if (!strcmp(update->old_target, "")) >> + strbuf_addf(err, "cannot lock ref '%s': " >> + "reference already exists", >> + original_update_refname(update)); >> + else if (!strcmp(ref, "")) >> + strbuf_addf(err, "cannot lock ref '%s': " >> + "reference is missing but expected %s", >> + original_update_refname(update), >> + update->old_target); > > So... for old_target and ref, an empty string is a special value? > How? Shouldn't that be documented in the comment before the > function? > >> + else >> + strbuf_addf(err, "cannot lock ref '%s': " >> + "is at %s but expected %s", >> + original_update_refname(update), >> + ref, update->old_target); >> + >> + return -1; >> +} >> + >> /* >> * Check whether the REF_HAVE_OLD and old_oid values stored in update >> * are consistent with oid, which is the reference's current value. If >> @@ -2528,6 +2559,18 @@ static int lock_ref_for_update(struct files_ref_store *refs, >> ret = TRANSACTION_GENERIC_ERROR; >> goto out; >> } >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * For symref verification, we need to check the reference value >> + * rather than the oid. If we're dealing with regular refs or we're >> + * verifying a dereferenced symref, we then check the oid. >> + */ >> + if (update->old_target) { >> + if (check_old_target(update, referent.buf, err)) { >> + ret = TRANSACTION_GENERIC_ERROR; >> + goto out; >> + } > > We come here only when update->type has REF_ISSYMREF bit on (we > learned that value by calling lock_raw_ref()), and know referent.buf > has the current "target" value. That is consumed as "ref" parameter > to check_old_target() we just saw. OK. > >> diff --git a/refs/reftable-backend.c b/refs/reftable-backend.c >> index 6104471199..a2474245aa 100644 >> --- a/refs/reftable-backend.c >> +++ b/refs/reftable-backend.c >> @@ -938,7 +938,26 @@ static int reftable_be_transaction_prepare(struct ref_store *ref_store, >> * individual refs. But the error messages match what the files >> * backend returns, which keeps our tests happy. >> */ >> - if (u->flags & REF_HAVE_OLD && !oideq(¤t_oid, &u->old_oid)) { >> + if ((u->flags & REF_HAVE_OLD) && u->old_target) { >> + if (strcmp(referent.buf, u->old_target)) { >> + if (!strcmp(u->old_target, "")) >> + strbuf_addf(err, "verifying symref target: '%s': " >> + "provided target is empty", >> + original_update_refname(u)); >> + else if (!strcmp(referent.buf, "")) >> + strbuf_addf(err, "verifying symref target: '%s': " >> + "reference is missing but expected %s", >> + original_update_refname(u), >> + u->old_target); >> + else >> + strbuf_addf(err, "verifying symref target: '%s': " >> + "is at %s but expected %s", >> + original_update_refname(u), >> + referent.buf, u->old_target); >> + ret = -1; >> + goto done; >> + } > > Again, the puzzling "empty string"s are handled here. For here and above, this too is dead code and no longer needed, old_target being empty string is left over code from before we decided to use zero_oid for deleting. I'll remove it. Thanks.