Skip to content

integrate gix-status #1291

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 17 commits into from
Feb 18, 2024
Merged

integrate gix-status #1291

merged 17 commits into from
Feb 18, 2024

Conversation

Byron
Copy link
Member

@Byron Byron commented Feb 14, 2024

Based on #1285


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

  • minimal integration of dirwalk() into gix status to learn more about it (and its performance)
  • multi-threaded dirwalk and modification check
  • dirwalk refactor
    • assure emit_collapsed is still tested
    • deal with common_prefix() not being a directory for sure. Maybe find the actual prefix directory based on the pathspecs themselves.
    • assure correct results with prefix, with or without pathspecs
    • do display-path computation correctly
    • make sure it can deal with . - normalization leaves it as is - gix --trace -v clean --debug -d .. has . pathspec in the end which matches nothing
    • assure CWD isn't removed, can happen with cd d && git clean -nd .. - instead prevent it from being collapsed as special case.
    • add relative path computation to excludes and attributes if needed

Next PR

  • mix index-check with dirwalk
  • rename-tracking in gix-status crate
  • status iterator in gix crate with index-worktree
  • adjust printed path according to prefix() in gix status
  • 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)

@Byron Byron force-pushed the status branch 7 times, most recently from cf5406c to f76d8ed Compare February 16, 2024 19:38
Previously it was possible for `.git` files in directories to
not trigger repository detection.
This is useful for rename tracking as it allows to see all files
that may take part in a rename (i.e. when a directory is renamed).
This is accomplished by providing a context which now contains only
statically known types, among them also a pathspec search. This allows
the attribute stack to be passed and can thus cheaply be cloned, instead
of being created internally.
…rectory()`.

That way it's possible to use the common-prefix safely in a situation
where a directory is required, while offering the ability to maximize
the common prefix at the expense of an additional check to see if
the longest possible directory is actually accessible.
…rectory.

This makes the overall handling more unified, while assuring it's always
in the worktree.

And as a pathspec directory isn't exactly the same as a user-specified root,
it's also possible to override this automation.
@Byron Byron force-pushed the status branch 2 times, most recently from c7f87d6 to 56a8ea8 Compare February 18, 2024 17:25
- when deleting items, we will always list them according to the prefix
- when listing items otherwise, the top-level only if the traversal starts
  in the worktree.
…thing

...if the current-dir is one level in.

Now such `.` is special and means to match everything.
With it, a path 'a' with prefix 'b' will be '../a'.
…efix.

Otherwise it's not possible to have the 'no pattern matches everything' case
which is important in conjunction with prefixes and the requirement to
still see everything outside of the prefix.
@Byron Byron merged commit bb48c4c into main Feb 18, 2024
@Byron Byron mentioned this pull request Feb 18, 2024
14 tasks
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