★ wanayoo — archive 1999 https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2sharp/pull/1226Nouvelle recherche | Portail wanayoo
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] Introduce pluggable Ref DB backends #1226

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

[WIP] Introduce pluggable Ref DB backends #1226

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

@jamill
Copy link
Member

@jamill jamill commented Nov 2, 2015

These changes have been sitting around for a while (builds upon a commit from @ethomson from 2013), and I wanted to see about moving this forward. This PR is not complete (yet), but there were some areas I wanted to bring up for discussion.

backend.References["refs/tags/broken3"] = new MockRefdbReference("the/type/filtering");
backend.References["refs/tags/correct1"] = new MockRefdbReference(new ObjectId("be3563ae3f795b2b4353bcce3a527ad0a4f7f644"));

List<string> tags = repository.Tags.Select(r => r.CanonicalName).ToList();

This comment has been minimized.

@jamill

jamill Nov 2, 2015
Author Member

It appears that tags iteration is stopping (return code of git_tag_list indicates success...) after the 1st reference cannot be resolved to a commit. This seems a bit unexpected.

/cc @ethomson @carlosmn

tx.Commit();
}

Assert.Null(repo.Refs[myRef.CanonicalName]);

This comment has been minimized.

@jamill

jamill Nov 2, 2015
Author Member

This test is currently failing - I am not sure if it is due to an bug the LibGit2Sharp side, or in the libgit2 side.

  1. The comments for the unlock call in refdb_backend.h seems like it might not reflect the current implementation? Looking at the code, libgit2 also returns 2 in update_target as a value for success in one place, and I am not sure how to interpret it...

  2. In update_target in transaction.c, there is some logic that is allocating refs. Should these calls instead be targeting the refdb backend?

This comment has been minimized.

@Rodske

Rodske Apr 22, 2017

How did you go with this? Did you manage to get any further around resolving these issues?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.