-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 292
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
Implement Git repo unshallowing #5434
Merged
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
merged 8 commits into
master
from
nikita-tkachenko/git-unshallowing
Jun 27, 2023
Merged
Implement Git repo unshallowing #5434
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
merged 8 commits into
master
from
nikita-tkachenko/git-unshallowing
Jun 27, 2023
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
added
the
comp: ci visibility
Continuous Integration Visibility
label
Jun 20, 2023
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
changed the base branch from
master
to
nikita-tkachenko/git-data-upload-components
June 20, 2023 17:14
BenchmarksParameters
See matching parameters
SummaryFound 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 22 cases. |
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
force-pushed
the
nikita-tkachenko/git-unshallowing
branch
2 times, most recently
from
June 20, 2023 18:27
7e873e4
to
93b235c
Compare
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
force-pushed
the
nikita-tkachenko/git-data-upload-components
branch
from
June 20, 2023 18:39
91f3447
to
d9816d4
Compare
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
force-pushed
the
nikita-tkachenko/git-data-upload-components
branch
from
June 22, 2023 15:19
d9816d4
to
c3b7b3a
Compare
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
force-pushed
the
nikita-tkachenko/git-unshallowing
branch
from
June 22, 2023 15:39
93b235c
to
7c0380d
Compare
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
changed the title
WIP: Implement Git repo unshallowing
Implement Git repo unshallowing
Jun 22, 2023
bantonsson
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Javadoc would be nice...
nikita-tkachenko-datadog
force-pushed
the
nikita-tkachenko/git-unshallowing
branch
from
June 26, 2023 15:55
7c0380d
to
f8a9e0a
Compare
Added Javadoc |
Base automatically changed from
nikita-tkachenko/git-data-upload-components
to
master
June 27, 2023 10:10
bantonsson
approved these changes
Jun 27, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What Does This Do
Implements logic for "unshallowing" a shallow Git repository.
The code checks whether current repo is a shallow one and if so, attempts to refetch the commits data from the server for the past month.
Motivation
CI Visibility's Intelligent Test Runner requires Git data in order to work: the tracer has to upload Git pack files to a backend endpoint.
Many CI providers clone their repositories with a shallow clone, which means there is no commit history. In those cases, sending a packfile to the backend would not be the correct choice since we would generate a packfile with a single commit instead of the necessary payload, therefore polluting the state of the backend.