a405ae015d
I think the history looks nice enough without that special case.
270 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
270 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
When `git annex export treeish --to remote` is used to export to a remote,
|
|
and the remote allows files to somehow be edited on it, then there ought
|
|
to be a way to import the changes back from the remote into the git repository.
|
|
The command could be `git annex import --from remote`
|
|
|
|
There also ought to be a way to make `git annex sync` automatically import.
|
|
|
|
See [[design/importing_trees_from_special_remotes]] for the design for
|
|
this.
|
|
|
|
Status: Basic git annex export treeish --to remote` is working,
|
|
and `git annex sync --content` can be configured to use it.
|
|
|
|
## remaining todo
|
|
|
|
* S3 buckets can be set up to allow reads and listing by an anonymous user.
|
|
That should allow importing from such a bucket, but the S3 remote
|
|
will need changes, since it currently avoids using the S3 API when
|
|
it does not have creds.
|
|
|
|
* Allow configuring importtree=yes w/o exporttree=yes, for eg anonymous S3
|
|
bucket import.
|
|
|
|
Note that in S3, this should let unversioned buckets be used w/o --force.
|
|
|
|
* Write a tip or tips to document using this new feature.
|
|
(Have one for adb now, but not for S3.)
|
|
|
|
* Add to external special remote protocol.
|
|
|
|
* Support importing from webdav, etc?
|
|
Problem is that these may have no way to avoid an export
|
|
overwriting changed content that would have been imported otherwise.
|
|
So if they're supported the docs need to reflect the problem so the user
|
|
avoids situations that cause data loss, or decides to accept the
|
|
possibility of data loss.
|
|
|
|
* When on an adjusted unlocked branch, need to import the files unlocked.
|
|
Also, the tracking branch code needs to know about such branches,
|
|
currently it will generate the wrong tracking branch.
|
|
|
|
The test case for `export_import` currently has a line commented out
|
|
that fails on adjusted unlocked branches.
|
|
|
|
Alternatively, could not do anything special for adjusted branches,
|
|
so generating a non-adjusted branch, and require the user use `git annex
|
|
sync` to merge in that branch. Rationalle: After fetching from a normal
|
|
git repo in an adjusted branch, merging does the same thing, and the docs
|
|
say to use `git annex sync` instead. Any improvments to that workflow
|
|
(like eg a way to merge a specified branch and update the adjustment)
|
|
would thus benefit both uses cases.
|
|
|
|
* Need to support annex.largefiles when importing.
|
|
|
|
* If a tree containing a non-annexed file is exported,
|
|
and then an import is done from the remote, the new tree will have that
|
|
file annexed, and so merging it converts to annexed (there is no merge
|
|
conflict). This problem seems hard to avoid, other than relaying on
|
|
annex.largefiles to tell git-annex if a file should be imported
|
|
non-annexed.
|
|
|
|
Although.. The importer could check for each file,
|
|
if there's a corresponding file in the branch it's generating the
|
|
import for, if that file is annexed. But this might be slow and seems a
|
|
lot of bother for an edge case?
|
|
|
|
## race conditions
|
|
|
|
(Some thoughts about races that the design should cover now, but kept here
|
|
for reference.)
|
|
|
|
A file could be modified on the remote while
|
|
it's being exported, and if the remote then uses the mtime of the modified
|
|
file in the content identifier, the modification would never be noticed by
|
|
imports.
|
|
|
|
To fix this race, we need an atomic move operation on the remote. Upload
|
|
the file to a temp file, then get its content identifier, and then move it
|
|
from the temp file to its final location. Alternatively, upload a file and
|
|
get the content identifier atomically, which eg S3 with versioning enabled
|
|
provides. It would make sense to have the storeExport operation always return
|
|
a content identifier and document that it needs to get it atomically by
|
|
either using a temp file or something specific to the remote.
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
There's also a race where a file gets changed on the remote after an
|
|
import tree, and an export then overwrites it with something else.
|
|
|
|
One solution would be to only allow one of importtree or exporttree
|
|
to a given remote. This reduces the use cases a lot though, and perhaps
|
|
so far that the import tree feature is not worth building. The adb
|
|
special remote needs both. Also, such a limitation seems like one that
|
|
users might try to work around by initializing two remotes using the same
|
|
data and trying to use one for import and the other for export.
|
|
|
|
Really fixing this race needs locking or an atomic operation. Locking seems
|
|
unlikely to be a portable enough solution.
|
|
|
|
An atomic rename operation could at least narrow the race significantly, eg:
|
|
|
|
1. get content identifier of $file, check if it's what was expected else
|
|
abort (optional but would catch most problems)
|
|
2. upload new version of $file to $tmp1
|
|
3. rename current $file to $tmp2
|
|
4. Get content identifier of $tmp2, check if it's what was expected to
|
|
be. If not, $file was modified after the last import tree, and that
|
|
conflict has to be resolved. Otherwise, delete $tmp2
|
|
5. rename $tmp1 to $file
|
|
|
|
That leaves a race if the file gets overwritten after it's moved out
|
|
of the way. If the rename refuses to overwrite existing files, that race
|
|
would be detected by it failing. renameat(2) with `RENAME_NOREPLACE` can do that,
|
|
but probably many special remote interfaces don't provide a way to do that.
|
|
|
|
S3 lacks a rename operation, can only copy and then delete. Which is not
|
|
good enough; it risks the file being replaced with new content before
|
|
the delete and the new content being deleted.
|
|
|
|
Is this race really a significant problem? One way to look at it is
|
|
analagous to a git merge overwriting a locally modified file.
|
|
Git can certianly use similar techniques to entirely detect and recover
|
|
from such races (but not the similar race described in the next section).
|
|
But, git does not actually do that! I modified git's
|
|
merge.c to sleep for 10 seconds after `refresh_index()`, and verified
|
|
that changes made to the work tree in that window were silently overwritten
|
|
by git merge. In git's case, the race window is normally quite narrow
|
|
and this is very unlikely to happen (the similar race described in the next
|
|
section is more likely).
|
|
|
|
If git-annex could get the race window similarly small out would perhaps be
|
|
ok. Eg:
|
|
|
|
1. upload new version of $file to $tmp
|
|
2. get content identifier of $file, check if it's what was expected else
|
|
abort
|
|
3. rename (or copy and delete) $tmp to $file
|
|
|
|
The race window between #2 and #3 could be quite narrow for some remotes.
|
|
But S3, lacking a rename, does a copy that can be very slow for large files.
|
|
|
|
S3, with versioning, could detect the race after the fact, by listing
|
|
the versions of the file, and checking if any of the versions is one
|
|
that git-annex did not know the file already had.
|
|
[Using this api](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/RESTBucketGETVersion.html),
|
|
with version-id-marker set to the previous version of the file,
|
|
should list only the previous and current versions; if there's an
|
|
intermediate version then the race occurred and it could roll the change
|
|
back, or otherwise recover the overwritten version. This could be done at
|
|
import time, to detect a previous race, and recover from it; importing
|
|
a tree with the file(s) that were overwritten due to the race, leading to a
|
|
tree import conflict that the user can resolve. This likely generalizes
|
|
to importing a sequence of trees, so each version written to S3 gets
|
|
imported.
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
A remaining race is that, if the file is open for write at the same
|
|
time it's renamed, the write might happen after the content identifer
|
|
is checked, and then whatever is written to it will be lost.
|
|
|
|
But: Git worktree update has the same race condition. Verified with
|
|
this perl oneliner, run in a worktree and a second later
|
|
followed by a git pull. The lines that it appended to the
|
|
file got lost:
|
|
|
|
perl -e 'open (OUT, ">>foo") || die "$!"; sleep(10); while (<>) { print OUT $_ }'
|
|
|
|
Since this is acceptable in git, I suppose we can accept it here too..
|
|
|
|
## S3 versioning and import
|
|
|
|
Listing a versioned S3 bucket with past versions results in S3 sending
|
|
a list that's effectively:
|
|
|
|
foo current-version
|
|
foo past-version
|
|
bar deleted
|
|
bar past-version
|
|
bar even-older-version
|
|
|
|
Each item on the list also has a LastModified date, and IsLatest
|
|
is set for the current version of each file.
|
|
|
|
This needs to be converted into a ImportableContents tree of file trees.
|
|
|
|
Getting the current file tree is easy, just filter on IsLatest.
|
|
|
|
Getting the past file trees seems hard. Two things are in tension:
|
|
|
|
* Want to generate the same file tree in this import that was used in past
|
|
imports. Since the file tree is converted to a git tree, this avoids
|
|
a proliferation of git trees.
|
|
|
|
* Want the past file trees to reflect what was actually in the
|
|
S3 bucket at different past points in time.
|
|
|
|
So while it would work fine to just make one past file tree for each
|
|
file, that contains only that single file, the user would not like
|
|
the resulting history when they explored it with git.
|
|
|
|
With the example above, the user expects something like this:
|
|
|
|
ImportableContents [(foo, current-version)]
|
|
[ ImportableContents [(foo, past-version), (bar, past-version)]
|
|
[ ImportableContents [(bar, even-older-version)]
|
|
[]
|
|
]
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
And the user would like for the inner-most list to also include
|
|
(foo, past-version) if it were in the S3 bucket at the same time
|
|
(bar, even-older-version) was added. So depending on the past
|
|
modificatio times of foo vs bar, they may really expect:
|
|
|
|
let l = ImportableContents [(foo, current-version)]
|
|
[ ImportableContents [(foo, past-version), (bar, past-version)]
|
|
[ ImportableContents [(foo, past-version), (bar, even-older-version)]
|
|
[ ImportableContents [(foo, past-version)]
|
|
[]
|
|
]
|
|
]
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
Now, suppose that foo is deleted and subsequently bar is added back,
|
|
so S3 now sends this list:
|
|
|
|
bar new-version
|
|
bar deleted
|
|
bar past-version
|
|
bar even-older-version
|
|
foo deleted
|
|
foo current-version
|
|
foo past-version
|
|
|
|
The user would expect this to result in:
|
|
|
|
ImportableContents [(bar, new-version)]
|
|
[ ImportableContents []
|
|
l
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
But l needs to be the same as the l above to avoid git trees proliferation.
|
|
|
|
What is the algorythm here?
|
|
|
|
1. Build a list of files with historical versions ([[a]]).
|
|
2. Extract a snapshot from the list
|
|
3. Remove too new versions from the list
|
|
4. Recurse with the new list.
|
|
|
|
Extracting a snapshot:
|
|
|
|
Map over the list, taking the head version of each item and tracking
|
|
the most recent modification time. Add the filenames to a snapshot list
|
|
(unless the item is a deletion).
|
|
|
|
Removing too new versions:
|
|
|
|
Map over the list, and when the head version of a file matches the most
|
|
recent modification time, pop it off.
|
|
|
|
This results in a list that is only versions before the snapshot.
|
|
|
|
Overall this is perhaps a bit better than O(n^2) because the size of the list
|
|
decreases as it goes?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
See also, [[adb_special_remote]]
|