If the content directory does not exist, then it does not make sense to
lock the content file, as it also does not exist, and so it's ok for the
lock operation to fail.
This avoids potential races where the content file exists but is then
deleted/renamed, while another process sees that it exists and goes to
lock it, resulting in a dangling lock file in an otherwise empty object
directory.
Also renamed modifyContent to modifyContentDir since it is not only
necessarily used for modifying content files, but also other files in
the content directory.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Capstone of the v10 upgrade process.
Tested with a git-annex drop in a v8 repo that had a local v8 remote.
Upgrading the repo to v10 (with --force) immedaitely caused it to notice
and switch over to v10 locking. Upgrading the remote also caused it to
switch over when operating on the remote.
The InodeCache makes this fairly efficient, just an added stat call per
lock of an object file. After the v10 upgrade, there is no more
overhead.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
The v10 upgrade should almost be safe now. What remains to be done is
notice when the v10 upgrade has occurred, while holding the shared lock,
and switch to using v10 lock files.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Now the content lock files are used in v9. However, I am not yet certian
they are correct. In particular, lockContentUsing deletes
the content lock file on unlock. But what if there's a shared lock
by another process? That seems like it would discard that lock too!
(Windows seems like it would not have the same problem, because as the
comment in there says, "Can't delete a locked file on Windows".
So if another process has a shared lock, removing it presumably fails.)
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Windows has always used a separate lock file, but on unix, the content
file itself was locked, and in v9 that changes to also use a separate
lock file.
This needs to be tested more. Eg, what happens after dropping a file;
does the the content lock file get deleted too, or linger around?
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
This is a result of an audit of every use of getInodeCaches,
to find places that misbehave when the annex object is not in the inode
cache, despite pointer files for the same key being in the inode cache.
Unfortunately, that is the case for objects that were in v7 repos that
upgraded to v8. Added a note about this gotcha to getInodeCaches.
Database.Keys.reconcileStaged, then annex.thin is set, would fail to
populate pointer files in this situation. Changed it to check if the
annex object is unmodified the same way inAnnex does, falling back to a
checksum if the inode cache is not recorded.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
The goal is that Database.Keys be able to use it; it can't use
Annex.Content.Presence due to an import loop.
Several other things also needed to be moved to Annex.Verify as a
conseqence.
Fix bug that caused some transfers to incorrectly fail with "content
changed while it was being sent", when the content was not changed.
While I don't know how to reproduce the problem that several people
reported, it is presumably due to the inode cache somehow being stale.
So check isUnmodified', and if it's not modified, include the file's
current inode cache in the set to accept, when checking for modification
after the transfer.
That seems like the right thing to do for another reason: The failure
says the file changed while it was being sent, but if the object file was
changed before the transfer started, that's wrong. So it needs to check
before allowing the transfer at all if the file is modified.
(Other calls to sameInodeCache or elemInodeCaches, when operating on inode
caches from the database, could also be problimatic if the inode cache is
somehow getting stale. This does not address such problems.)
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Checksum as content is received from a remote git-annex repository, rather
than doing it in a second pass.
Not tested at all yet, but I imagine it will work!
Not implemented for any special remotes, and also not implemented for
copies from local remotes. It may be that, for local remotes, it will
suffice to use rsync, rely on its checksumming, and simply return Verified.
(It would still make a checksumming pass when cp is used for COW, I guess.)
This will let a module that Annex.Content imports use inAnnex.
Unsure yet if I will need that, but this split still seems to make
sense, and Annex.Content was way too long so splitting it is good.
