-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
fix: avoid resetting fetch head when doing branch fetch unshallow #4577
Conversation
Could someone suggest why the CI check (tester/e2e-github) might be failing? The output is unclear:
and the tests passed for me locally, so I can't understand what the issue might be. |
Can you update this PR from the main branch? You haven't given permission for maintainers to update it. |
When doing merge strategy with shallow clones, git will set FETCH_HEAD to base branch when doing unshallow. Fetch another to reset it back.
@X-Guardian Thanks for taking a look at this. I've rebased the branch. |
Thanks for this @0x0013. Can you test on one of these container images: dev-debian-d4247bc or dev-alpine-d4247bc |
Tested with dev-debian-d4247bc and Atlantis still shows changes after PR branch tail exceeds |
…natlantis#4577) Signed-off-by: kvanzuijlen <8818390+kvanzuijlen@users.noreply.github.com>
When doing merge strategy with shallow clones, git will set FETCH_HEAD to base branch when doing unshallow. This fetches another time to reset it back, as we depend on the value later.
what
When using
merge
strategy with acheckout-depth
and the shallow branch can't find a common base with the base branch, a full branch must be fetched with--unshallow
. This PR does another fetch from the feature branch after doing this, to keep theFETCH_HEAD
as expected for future operations.why
When doing
merge
strategy with shallow clones, git will setFETCH_HEAD
to base branch when doing unshallow.FETCH_HEAD
is later used as the ref when doing a merge to base branch, effectively merging it with itself. This in turn causes Atlantis to plan/apply against the base branch and presenting "no changes", even when there should be changes.tests
We have been running a fork with this fix for a few month, using a
merge
strategy with acheckout-depth
value that triggers a full clone relatively often. We have not experienced plans against the base branch since this fix, while we experienced them quite often before.references
While the original issue seems to be referring to a different situation, there is as issue comment describing this situation. The bug being fixed would also present errors like the ones in the issue, though I don't think this PR fixes that specific issue.