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

ENH: (More) comprehensive AnnexRepo.fsck() (fixes gh-3514) #3693

merged 3 commits into from
Sep 25, 2019


Copy link

@mih mih commented Sep 19, 2019

This merely lifts the implementation from
and adds some docs.

A smoke test will come, likely infused into existing tests. I have no immediate plans to test the more exotic parts (scheduled incremental, etc).

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 19, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #3693 into master will decrease coverage by 1.15%.
The diff coverage is 27.27%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3693      +/-   ##
- Coverage   82.48%   81.32%   -1.16%     
  Files         274      273       -1     
  Lines       35805    35863      +58     
- Hits        29532    29166     -366     
- Misses       6273     6697     +424
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
datalad/distribution/tests/ 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
datalad/support/tests/ 96.3% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
datalad/support/ 61.54% <5.88%> (-2.1%) ⬇️
datalad/metadata/ 14.24% <0%> (-43.92%) ⬇️
datalad/metadata/ 45.15% <0%> (-42.94%) ⬇️
datalad/metadata/ 35.39% <0%> (-41.34%) ⬇️
datalad/cmdline/ 75.28% <0%> (-2.74%) ⬇️
datalad/downloaders/tests/ 57.77% <0%> (-2.23%) ⬇️
datalad/interface/ 86.95% <0%> (-1.87%) ⬇️
datalad/interface/ 91.12% <0%> (-1.62%) ⬇️
... and 20 more

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 353e03f...c1d3c9b. Read the comment docs.

Copy link

cool, I didn't even know we interfaced annex fsck ;) The one recentish fsck experience for me was fixing up permissions, but ATM git-annex doesn't do that: and I am yet to convince @joeyh to let machines do heavy lifting in some of those cases ;)

Copy link
Member Author

mih commented Sep 22, 2019

Again (unrelated) time out in one of the appveyor runs.

Copy link

@kyleam kyleam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks fine to me. My only minor comment is that, based on looking at the usage in ria, I'm not sure incremental and limit are worth exposing, especially given annex_options is available.

datalad/support/ Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
But keep additional aspects preserved in comments
Copy link
Member Author

mih commented Sep 24, 2019

Thx for the feedback @kyleam. I have commented out the pieces that are less important.

Copy link

kyleam commented Sep 24, 2019

I have commented out the pieces that are less important.

Thanks. However, if you have even a slight preference for leaving them in, please go with that. Either way is fine with me.

Copy link
Member Author

mih commented Sep 25, 2019

No, I am fine with leaving this out for now. We already have enough code with functionality that is not used much.

@mih mih merged commit 361d30d into datalad:master Sep 25, 2019
@mih mih deleted the enh-fsck branch September 25, 2019 11:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants