This relies on git ls-files --with-tree, which I'm using in a way that
its man page does not document. Hm. I emailed the git list to try to get
the docs improved, but at least the git test suite does test the same
kind of use case I'm using here.
Performance impact when not in an adjusted branch is limited to some
additional MVar accesses, and a single git call to determine the name of
the current branch. So very minimal.
When in an adjusted branch, the performance impact is
in Annex.WorkTree.lookupFile, which starts doing an equal amount of work
for files that didn't exist as it already did for files that were
unlocked.
This commit was sponsored by Jochen Bartl on Patreon.
Both Command.Sync and Annex.Ingest had their own versions of this.
The one in Annex.Ingest used Git.Branch.currentUnsafe, but does not seem
to need it. That is only checking to see if it's in an adjusted unlocked
branch, and when in an adjusted branch, the branch does in fact exist,
so the added check that Git.Branch.current does is fine.
This commit was sponsored by Denis Dzyubenko on Patreon.
* At long last there's a way to hide annexed files whose content
is missing from the working tree: git-annex adjust --hide-missing
* When already in an adjusted branch, running git-annex adjust
again will update the branch as needed. This is mostly
useful with --hide-missing to hide/unhide files after their content
has been dropped or received.
Still needs integration with sync and the assistant, and not as fast as it
could be, but already usable.
This commit was sponsored by Ethan Aubin.
Combinations like --hide-misssing --unlocked seem very useful. On the
other hand, combining --fix with --unlock doesn't make sense because a
file can be either unlocked or a symlink that can be fixed, but not
both.
Changed the serialization of HideMissingAdjustment in passing, but it
has not actually been used yet so nothing will be broken.
This commit was sponsored by Trenton Cronholm on Patreon.
After 220317df5a the test suite still
detected a problem; migrate of an unlocked file replaced it with a
pointer file rather than a file with the content.
This was a bookeeping problem; the worktree file was being copied to the object
file and the inode cache updated, but if that database write didn't get
flushed in time, later checks would think the content was not present.
Fixed by copying the object file to the worktree file instead, which
avoids needing to update the inode cache.
Also, only copy when there's a hard link to break, not always.
This commit was sponsored by Brock Spratlen on Patreon.
After commit b2bafdb2fc the test suite
threw up a failure migrating unlocked files.
I'm not clear how that commit broke it (presumably by inAnnex reporting
the right information now), but the actual problem is plain:
The inodecache for the worktree file is generated, but then the file is
replaced with a copy (unncessarily unless annex.link is set, but the
code always does so) and so linkToAnnex/linkAnnex then fails because it
notices the inode cache is not valid.
This commit was sponsored by Jake Vosloo on Patreon.
That could cause git-annex to get confused about whether a locked file's
content was present, when the object file got touched.
Unfortunately this means more work sometimes when annex.thin is set,
since it has to checksum the file to tell if it's still got the right
content.
Had to suppress output when inAnnex calls isUnmodified, otherwise
"(checksum...)" would be printed in places it ought not to be,
eg "git annex get" could turn out not need to get anything, and
so only display that.
This commit was sponsored by Ole-Morten Duesund on Patreon.
I understand and sympathize with why this was added here, but the fact
is that this kind of warning is clutter that is going to make it harder
to understand this man page overall; this is not the place to document
internal implementation details of the format of URL keys and more than
it would be the place to document how WORM keys mangle and truncate
filenames, or how the extension of a SHAnE key is chosen. I see that
it did get documented better in backends.mdwn, which is a good place
to document it.
The chance that someone is going to have the same misunderstanding and
happen to see this warning does not justify confusing everyone else
with a warning that is really out of place in this documentation.
