Skip to content

Conversation

@avnyu
Copy link

@avnyu avnyu commented Nov 12, 2025

What does this PR try to resolve?

My attempt to continue #10279.

This:

  • Moves the code for creating git db into GitSource::update_db
  • Creates GitSource for each submodules
  • Replaces fetch inside update_submodule by GitSource::update_db and db.copy_to
  • Removes recursive update_submodules calls cos db.copy_to already recursive.

Fixes #7987.

How to test and review this PR?

I tested using the original pull method:

~/.cargo/target/debug/cargo update -p boring --precise 46787b7b6909cadf81cf3a8cd9dc351c9efdfdbd
~/.cargo/target/debug/cargo update -p boring --precise c037a438f8d7b91533524570237afcfeffffe496

and confirmed that the time to do the second update is negligible.
Also test if it can fetch submodule offline using the downloaded git db

git clone https://github.com/pop-os/cosmic-files && cd cosmic-files
~/.cargo/target/debug/cargo fetch --locked --target=$(rustc --print host-tuple)
rm -rf ~/.cargo/git/checkout ~/.cargo/target/debug/cargo fetch --locked --target=$(rustc --print host-tuple) --offline

@rustbot rustbot added A-git Area: anything dealing with git S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 12, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Nov 12, 2025

r? @weihanglo

rustbot has assigned @weihanglo.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@epage
Copy link
Contributor

epage commented Nov 12, 2025

It would help reviewers if you break this down into atomic commits. For example, by making a commit for extracting update_db, it becomes clear whether it was purely an extraction or there are also other changes.

See https://doc.crates.io/contrib/process/working-on-cargo.html#submitting-a-pull-request

@rustbot

This comment has been minimized.

  - creates GitSource for each submodules
  - replaces fetch inside update_submodule by GitSource::update_db and db.copy_to
  - removes recursive update_submodules calls cos db.copy_to already recursive.
  - adjust git testsuite
@avnyu avnyu force-pushed the cached-submodules branch from 70350b1 to ffd78e6 Compare November 12, 2025 17:52
@rustbot

This comment has been minimized.

@avnyu
Copy link
Author

avnyu commented Nov 12, 2025

Done, the "extract code into update_db" part is a single commit now. I think the remains part needs to be in the same commit

Comment on lines 472 to 475
.with_context(|| {
let name = child.name().unwrap_or("");
format!("failed to fetch submodule `{name}` from {child_remote_url}",)
})?;
Copy link
Contributor

@epage epage Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like we should have this also on update_db and copy_to

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I tried and the testsuite failed. Should I also adjust testsuite more? I do try to keep it unchanged as much as possible.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Depends on the failure

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about put it only after db.copy_to? I tested and it do pass the testsuite without further modification. The original fetch was replaced by (gitsource create, update_db and db.copy_to), so put the error context to after db.copy_to seem enough?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

aeda351
Done, and adjust the testsuite.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See an alternative in #16246 (comment)

SourceId::from_url(&format!("git+{child_remote_url}#{head}"))?,
gctx,
RemoteKind::GitDependency,
)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What impact does this have on our progress bars?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mostly the same? The old fetch will have a single progress bar, which now changes into a progress bar for update_db and a brief progress bar after for db.copy. This progress bars behavior should be the same as when update git source. Most of the time I don't even notice the brief one.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ea4eb86 should fix when submodule database exist but still print "updating submodule"

Comment on lines 479 to 482
db.copy_to(actual_rev, &repo.path(), gctx)?;

let obj = repo.find_object(head, None)?;
reset(&repo, &obj, gctx)?;
update_submodules(&repo, gctx, &child_remote_url)
reset(&repo, &obj, gctx)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it be more proper to copy_to after reset?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I not wrong, the original fetch create checkout?/source at the submodules path. update_db only create git db at CARGO_HOME/git/db, not at the checkout submodules path, so db.copy_to need to run first before we can git reset.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

d4d3e6a
I break db.copy_to into small part, the recursive update_submodules part now keep at the original place

the original fetch is replace by (GitSource create, update_db, db.copy) so the error context should be put after db.copy
… have the commit

let update_db handle the update status by passing quiet recursively
db.copy_to has recursive call for update submodules inside it, now
clone the submodule first before reset and keep the recursive update
submodules call at the original place.
also adjust the bad submodule git testsuite
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Nov 27, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

Copy link
Member

@weihanglo weihanglo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the contribution!

We should have tests for this new caching behavior, especially for nested submodules. See https://doc.crates.io/contrib/process/working-on-cargo.html#making-a-change for how, and also mind the atomic commit pattern (adding test first capturing the existing behavior, and the fix commit showing behavior change through test diffs)

View changes since this review

Ok(())
}

pub(crate) fn update_db(&self) -> CargoResult<(GitDatabase, git2::Oid)> {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

update_db is an ambiguous name. Would love to see a doc comment of this with a clearer. A random suggestion:

Suggested change
pub(crate) fn update_db(&self) -> CargoResult<(GitDatabase, git2::Oid)> {
/// Ensures a local [`GitDatabase`] exists for this source,
/// and returns it with the resolved revision to use.
///
/// This won't fetch anything if the required revision is
/// already available locally.
pub(crate) fn ensure_db(&self) -> CargoResult<(GitDatabase, git2::Oid)> {

&child_remote_url,
&reference,
let mut source = GitSource::new(
SourceId::from_url(&format!("git+{child_remote_url}#{head}"))?,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instead of constructing URL manually, we have a SourceId::for_git for the purpose.


let obj = repo.find_object(head, None)?;
reset(&repo, &obj, gctx)
reset(&repo, &obj, gctx)?;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we still need this reset, given GitCheckout::clone_into already reset it?

let name = child.name().unwrap_or("");
format!("failed to fetch submodule `{name}` from {child_remote_url}",)
})?;
guard.mark_ok()?;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The checkout is marked ready then we recurse into submodules. I feel like that means the checkout is not ready yet.

Would this situation happens? _User cancels the operation before recursing to nested submodules. They later they dependency on this submodule directly and Cargo assumes it is fresh so never recurse into nested submodules.

Comment on lines 475 to 484
.with_context(|| {
let name = child.name().unwrap_or("");
format!("failed to fetch submodule `{name}` from {child_remote_url}",)
})?;
source.set_quiet(quiet);

let (db, actual_rev) = source.update_db(true)?;
let (db, actual_rev) = source.update_db(true).with_context(|| {
let name = child.name().unwrap_or("");
format!("failed to fetch submodule `{name}` from {child_remote_url}",)
})?;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instead of this, I wonder if we should consolidate this in the error context in fn update_submodules()

})?;

// Clone and reset to the head commmit
// Clone and reset to the head commit
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are open to rebasing/reorganizing your commit history throughout the iterations of a pull request. And personally I think this kind of commit should be squashed into wherever made this typo. That would help get a more understandable/traceable git commit history

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[not specific to this file]

[not hard blockers]

I noticed that in the commit history we have Merge branch 'master' of https://…. We encourage rebasing and having a well-structured git history for review/debugging/tracing purpose.

Also, chore: … were used in some commits, but chore should have not production code change (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/26944812). IMO they should either be refactor or fix.
(Some may be better being squashed into the entire fix ffd78e6, as those intermediates commits minimally help future review and code tracing)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

A-git Area: anything dealing with git S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

git submodules are not cached

4 participants