A recent change made plumbing the backend through fsck unncessary.
Left fsck checking backend and skipping operating on key when it could
not find one. Not checking the backend would be a behavior change.
For example the command git-annex fsck --key FOO--bar does nothing
since FOO is not a known backend. If this were removed it would
instead go on and fsck it and warn that no copies exist of the key.
That behavior change seems like it would be fine, but I also have no
reason to make it.
While redundant concurrent transfers were already prevented in most
cases, it failed to prevent the case where two different repositories were
sending the same content to the same repository. By removing the uuid
from the transfer lock file for Download transfers, one repository
sending content will block the other one from also sending the same
content.
In order to interoperate with old git-annex, the old lock file is still
locked, as well as locking the new one. That added a lot of extra code
and work, and the plan is to eventually stop locking the old lock file,
at some point in time when an old git-annex process is unlikely to be
running at the same time.
Note that in the case of 2 repositories both doing eg
`git-annex copy foo --to origin`
the output is not that great:
copy b (to origin...)
transfer already in progress, or unable to take transfer lock
git-annex: transfer already in progress, or unable to take transfer lock
97% 966.81 MiB 534 GiB/s 0sp2pstdio: 1 failed
Lost connection (fd:14: hPutBuf: resource vanished (Broken pipe))
Transfer failed
Perhaps that output could be cleaned up? Anyway, it's a lot better than letting
the redundant transfer happen and then failing with an obscure error about
a temp file, which is what it did before. And it seems users don't often
try to do this, since nobody ever reported this bug to me before.
(The "97%" there is actually how far along the *other* transfer is.)
Sponsored-by: Joshua Antonishen on Patreon
If the lock file was not able to be exclusivlely locked, don't indicate
locking failed. I'm pretty sure this was a typo. It goes all the way
back to 891c85cd88 where locking was first
introduced on windows, and there's no indication of why it would make
sense to return True here.
Sponsored-by: Leon Schuermann on Patreon
A recent change made plumbing the backend through fsck unncessary.
Left fsck checking backend and skipping operating on key when it could
not find one, although I'm not sure if that's necessary to support eg,
keys with unknown backend.
When a file in the export is renamed, and the remote's renameExport
returned Nothing, renaming to the temp file would first say it was
renaming, and appear to succeed, but actually what it did was delete the
file. Then renaming from the temp file would not do anything, since the
temp file is not present on the remote. This appeared as if a file got
renamed to a temp file and left there.
Note that exporttree=yes importree=yes remotes have their usual
renameExport replaced with one that returns Nothing. (For reasons
explained in Remote.Helper.ExportImport.) So this happened
even with remotes that support renameExport.
Fix by letting renameExport = Nothing when it's not supported at all.
This avoids displaying the rename.
Sponsored-by: Graham Spencer on Patreon
