recognize the new packed-ref header format #689

bjb · 2017-10-13T13:46:25Z

Related to issue 687. I also had the problem after updating my git version.

Please feel free to remove all the comments explaining the change.

I must admit this is the first time I've looked at the git source, so I may not have done this right. But, it works for me : -)

as long as line contains "peeled", accept it
fixes the PackingType of packed-Refs not understood:

pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled sorted

problem

as long as line contains "peeled", accept it fixes the PackingType of packed-Refs not understood: # pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled sorted problem

bjb · 2017-10-13T21:16:17Z

I'm not familiar with "appveyor", it seems a windows version of python is objecting to this patch? Maybe it doesn't like the syntax: if 'substr' not in 'mystring'? If that is the case, I can rewrite in another syntax. Is there a recommended method for windows versions of python? Or am I completely off base?

How about using "find"? Find was not recommended in the python documentation for this kind of application because it is inefficient I guess ... but if it is the only thing that will work I can use it.

bjb · 2017-10-13T22:53:14Z

Oops, I did not mean to close it ...

codecov-io · 2017-10-13T22:53:20Z

Codecov Report

Merging #689 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #689   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.95%   92.95%           
=======================================
  Files          61       61           
  Lines       10065    10065           
=======================================
  Hits         9356     9356           
  Misses        709      709

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
git/refs/symbolic.py	`96.44% <100%> (ø)`	⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f237620...5a358f2. Read the comment docs.

bjb · 2017-10-14T02:23:51Z

I found the details for the appveyor failures (test console output). It says, in each of several python versions, after 500 lines of test output, that it cannot find the git executable. It is doing the "refresh" test in each case.. I don't think I can address that.

Re: coverage ... again I don't know how to make these tests pass. Maybe there needs to be more tests, to cover the case where the word "peel" did not occur on the packed-refs header for example.

Or maybe I completely misunderstand.

rbdixon · 2017-10-30T20:02:00Z

@bjb -- thank you! This issue stopped development here as we sorted it out. This one-liner fixes the issue nicely. Hope to see it merged soon.

gawbul · 2017-11-01T16:27:45Z

@bjb same here - updated file with this update and fixed issues I was having.

Byron · 2017-11-02T07:08:54Z

Thanks a lot for your contribution!
I hope this merge will already help some people.
However, it would be nice if you could also stitch a test together to make the intent of the code executable :).

bjb · 2017-11-03T04:30:20Z

Hmm, I'll have to learn more about these packed_refs then ... Also must learn about testing in GitPython.

In the test, should I create a repo and then use it, or does the test suite make a repo for the tests to use? I think this "peeled sorted" thing requires a certain version of git, how do I specify that in the test? Thanks for whatever pointers you can send me. I will try to do this regardless.

jgavris · 2017-11-09T14:45:51Z

Hi, just wondering when the next release will be cut? A bunch of people have upgraded git and need this.

bjb · 2017-11-10T04:30:44Z

There are already some tests that cover this problem.

When using git version 2.15 and GitPython version 2.1.7 (ccff34d)

The following tests ERROR when running
"nosetests git/test/test_refs.py"

ERROR: test_head_checkout_detached_head (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_head_reset (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_heads (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_is_valid (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_reflog (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_refs (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_tag_base (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_tags (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)
ERROR: test_tags_author (git.test.test_refs.TestRefs)

(all but the "test_heads" test complain about the reported error:
TypeError: PackingType of packed-Refs not understood: '# pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled sorted'; test_heads has a different error but it is also cleared up with the fix.)

And when using git version 2.15 and GitPython version 5a358f2 (where the fix went in)

and running "nosetests git/test/test_refs.py", all the same tests pass:

nosetests git/test/test_refs.py 2>&1 | less
............

Ran 12 tests in 3.531s

OK

Please let me know if this is sufficient or if you'd like something else done.

beatgammit · 2017-11-14T23:11:38Z

Just pinging because a release would be very nice to have.

Byron · 2017-11-19T15:02:28Z

@beatgammit Sorry for all these delays, I am now working towards merging all pending PRs, making Travis happy (flake8 failure), to pave the way towards a release. Let's hope I will finish this today.

kennethreitz · 2017-11-25T16:15:50Z

I can confirm that this patch is hitting me as well.

theckman · 2017-12-01T17:02:42Z

I've opened a new issue to track a new release of GitPython to include this fix. I didn't want to step on anyone toes, but felt it would be an easier way for all of us to track a new release that includes this fix:

New GitPython release to include fixes in #689 #704

kennethreitz · 2017-12-05T15:11:05Z

\o/

Byron · 2017-12-11T14:41:54Z

@thiblahute Sorry for letting you (and probably many more) wait for so long. I am once again working on it, and think chances are I will actually make that release today as I am on vacation and fortunately have nothing else to do :D!

On a local machine, when using git 2.15, GitPython before 2.1.8 will fail to recognize an instruction and raise: Type of packed-Refs not understood: '# pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled sorted' That is fixed since GitPython 2.1.8: gitpython-developers/GitPython#689 We do not want versions 2.1.2 to 2.1.7 that have a performance regression. In Docker containers I want to rely on the python3-git python (2.1.1) over the version from PyPI. Both Jessie and Stretch ship 2.1.1 and have older git versions, they are not affected by the issue. Hence extend the requirement so that it accepts the Debian package version (2.1.1 < 2.2.0). Blacklist the versions we do not want (2.1.2 to 2.1.7). Allow a version from Pypi (2.1.8+) when one uses a recent git. Bug: T193057 Change-Id: I47367016c496e73fa18ad6d17dc08a39d5d4283d

recognize the new packed-ref header format

recognize the new packed-ref header format

5a358f2

as long as line contains "peeled", accept it fixes the PackingType of packed-Refs not understood: # pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled sorted problem

bjb mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2017

PackingType of packed-Refs not understood: '# pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled sorted' #687

Closed

bjb closed this Oct 13, 2017

bjb reopened this Oct 13, 2017

Byron merged commit 66328d7 into gitpython-developers:master Nov 2, 2017

pleunv mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2017

GitPython issues with packed-ref format in Git 2.15+ msiemens/PyGitUp#65

Closed

samuelcole mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2017

TypeError: PackingType of packed-Refs not understood frostming/legit#225

Closed

plauche mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2017

Adding dbus-tools + other fixes kubos/kubos-vagrant#32

Merged

theckman mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 2017

New GitPython release to include fixes in #689 #704

Closed

riley-martine pushed a commit to riley-martine/GitPython that referenced this pull request Dec 7, 2023

Merge pull request gitpython-developers#689 from bjb/master

cfaab3a

recognize the new packed-ref header format

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

recognize the new packed-ref header format #689

recognize the new packed-ref header format #689

bjb commented Oct 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

bjb commented Oct 13, 2017

bjb commented Oct 13, 2017

codecov-io commented Oct 13, 2017

bjb commented Oct 14, 2017

rbdixon commented Oct 30, 2017

gawbul commented Nov 1, 2017

Byron commented Nov 2, 2017

bjb commented Nov 3, 2017

jgavris commented Nov 9, 2017

bjb commented Nov 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading

beatgammit commented Nov 14, 2017

Byron commented Nov 19, 2017

kennethreitz commented Nov 25, 2017

theckman commented Dec 1, 2017

kennethreitz commented Dec 5, 2017

Byron commented Dec 11, 2017

recognize the new packed-ref header format #689

recognize the new packed-ref header format #689

Conversation

bjb commented Oct 13, 2017 • edited Loading

pack-refs with: peeled fully-peeled sorted

bjb commented Oct 13, 2017

bjb commented Oct 13, 2017

codecov-io commented Oct 13, 2017

Codecov Report

bjb commented Oct 14, 2017

rbdixon commented Oct 30, 2017

gawbul commented Nov 1, 2017

Byron commented Nov 2, 2017

bjb commented Nov 3, 2017

jgavris commented Nov 9, 2017

bjb commented Nov 10, 2017 • edited Loading

nosetests git/test/test_refs.py 2>&1 | less ............

beatgammit commented Nov 14, 2017

Byron commented Nov 19, 2017

kennethreitz commented Nov 25, 2017

theckman commented Dec 1, 2017

kennethreitz commented Dec 5, 2017

Byron commented Dec 11, 2017

bjb commented Oct 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

bjb commented Nov 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading

nosetests git/test/test_refs.py 2>&1 | less
............