It ought to exist, since linkToLock has just created it. However,
Lustre seems to have a rather probabilisitic view of the contents of a
directory, so catching the error if it somehow does not exist and
running the same code path that would be ran if linkToLock failed
might avoid this fun Lustre failure.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Commit b6e4ed9aa7 made non-annexed files
be re-uploaded every time, since they're not tracked in the location log,
and it made it check the location log. Don't do that for non-annexed files.
Sponsored-by: Brock Spratlen on Patreon
This version of git -- or its new default "ort" resolver -- handles such
a conflict by staging two files, one with the original name and the other
named file~ref. Use unmergedSiblingFile when the latter is detected.
(It doesn't do that when the conflict is between a directory and a file
or symlink though, so see previous commit for how that case is handled.)
The sibling file has to be deleted separately, because cleanConflictCruft
may not delete it -- that only handles files that are annex links,
but the sibling file may be the non-annexed file side of the conflict.
The graftin code had assumed that, when the other side of a conclict
is a symlink, the file in the work tree will contain the non-annexed
content that we want it to contain. But that is not the case with the new
git; the file may be the annex link and needs to be replaced with the
content, while the annex link will be written as a -variant file.
(The weird doesDirectoryExist check in graftin turns out to still be
needed, test suite failed when I tried to remove it.)
Test suite passes with new git with ort resolver default. Have not tried it
with old git or other defaults.
Sponsored-by: Noam Kremen on Patreon
The new "ort" resolver uses different filenames than what the test suite
accepted when resolving a conflict between a directory an an annexed
file. Make the test looser in what it accepts, so it will work with old
and new git.
Other tests still look for "conflictor.variant" as a prefix,
because when eg resolving a conflicted merge of 2 annexed files,
the filename is not changed by the ort resolver, and I didn't want to
unncessarily loosen the test.
Also I'm not entirely happy with the filenames used by the ort resolver,
see comment.
There's still another test failure caused by that resolver that is not
fixed yet.
This bug mostly would happen when the downloads ran very fast or were
all failing (how I reproduced it), because there have to be two
downloads that finish very close to the same time to trigger the race.
So most users of -J probably would not see much impact from the bug.
Bugfix: When -J was enabled, getting files leaked a ever-growing number of
git cat-file processes.
(Since commit dd39e9e255)
The leak happened when mergeState called stopNonConcurrentSafeCoProcesses.
While stopNonConcurrentSafeCoProcesses usually manages to stop everything,
there was a race condition where cat-file processes were leaked. Because
catFileStop modifies Annex.catfilehandles in a non-concurrency safe way,
and could clobber modifications made in between. Which should have been ok,
since originally catFileStop was only used at shutdown.
Note the comment on catFileStop saying it should only be used when nothing
else is using the handles. It would be possible to make catFileStop
race-safe, but it should just not be used in a situation where a race is
possible. So I didn't bother.
Instead, the fix is just not to stop any processes in mergeState. Because
in order for mergeState to be called, dupState must have been run, and it
enables concurrency mode, stops any non-concurrent processes, and so all
processes that are running are concurrency safea. So there is no need to
stop them when merging state. Indeed, stopping them would be extra work,
even if there was not this bug.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
When non-concurrent git coprocesses have been started, setConcurrency
used to not stop them, and so could leak processes when enabling
concurrency, eg when forkState is called.
I do not think that ever actually happened, given where setConcurrency
is called. And it probably would only leak one of each process, since it
never downgrades from concurrent to non-concurrent.
