GitRepository `.spec.ref.commit` + `.spec.ref.branch` does not shallow clone, contrary to the docs
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 42/100
Línea de trabajo
Empieza por pkg/git/gogit/clone.go, especialmente cloneCommit, y compáralo con cloneBranch, cloneTag y cloneSemVer; después inspecciona gitrepository_controller.go y docs/spec/v1/gitrepositories.md. Confirma el comportamiento actual y las pruebas relevantes antes de decidir si el alcance se limita a la documentación o incluye la clonación con profundidad acotada y el commit fast path. Se considera terminado cuando el comportamiento seleccionado está implementado y documentado correctamente, con cobertura de regresión para la ruta afectada.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Summary
The v1 GitRepository docs state that combining .spec.ref.commit with .spec.ref.branch performs a shallow clone. It does not — the commit clone path never sets a depth. The combination gives you --single-branch, not --depth.
Either the docs should be corrected, or a real bounded-depth mechanism should be added. I'd argue for both, plus a third fix that is probably the biggest win (see "Skipped fast path" below).
What the docs say
docs/spec/v1/gitrepositories.md, under Commit example:
This field takes precedence over all other fields. It can be combined with
.spec.ref.branchto perform a shallow clone of the branch, in which the commit must exist:spec: ref: branch: <branch> commit: "<commit SHA within branch>"
The wording appears to date back to the v1beta2 API field comment from the gitImplementation: go-git | libgit2 era (quoted in #1017):
// Commit SHA to check out, takes precedence over all reference fields.
//
// When GitRepositorySpec.GitImplementation is set to 'go-git', this can be
// combined with Branch to shallow clone the branch, in which the commit is
// expected to exist.
What the code does
In fluxcd/pkg/git/gogit, cloneBranch, cloneTag and cloneSemVer all honour opts.ShallowClone:
var depth int
if opts.ShallowClone {
depth = 1
}
cloneOpts := &extgogit.CloneOptions{ /* ... */ Depth: depth /* ... */ }
cloneCommit has no depth variable and no Depth field in its CloneOptions at all. The only effect of also setting a branch is:
if opts.Branch != "" {
cloneOpts.SingleBranch = g.singleBranch // true by default
cloneOpts.ReferenceName = plumbing.NewBranchReferenceName(opts.Branch)
}
singleBranch defaults to true in NewClient ("Default to single branch as it is the most performant option"), and Client.clone dispatches on Commit before any other ref field, so .spec.ref.commit always routes here.
So branch + commit narrows the fetch from all branches, full history to one branch, full history. That is a real improvement over commit alone, but it is --single-branch, not a shallow clone. source-controller sets ShallowClone: true unconditionally in gitrepository_controller.go, and cloneCommit silently ignores it.
Skipped fast path
cloneCommit is also the only clone path without the LastObservedCommit short-circuit that the others open with:
if lastObserved := git.TransformRevision(opts.LastObservedCommit); lastObserved != "" {
head, err := g.getRemoteHEAD(ctx, url, ref, authMethod) // ls-remote, no clone
// ...
if head != "" && shortRef == lastObserved {
return c, nil // nothing fetched
}
}
This is visible in the controller logs. A branch- or tag-pinned GitRepository logs no changes since last reconciliation; a commit-pinned one logs artifact up-to-date with remote revision — i.e. it cloned first and only then discovered the artifact was already current.
This seems like the most valuable thing to fix: a commit pin is immutable, so polling can never discover a new revision, yet every interval pays for a full-history fetch.
Impact
Observed on a production cluster, source-controller v1.9.4:
- Three commit-pinned GitRepositories (
branch+commit+sparseCheckout) against one large monorepo,interval: 1h. - Each reconcile takes 3–4 minutes and drives the container's Go heap to its 1Gi limit. Since
GOMEMLIMITis wired tolimits.memoryin the stock manifest, Go enters continuous GC at that ceiling,/healthzmisses the Kubernetes defaulttimeoutSeconds: 1, and the kubelet restarts the container. - 49 restarts in ~6 days, every one of them
Killing: Container manager failed liveness probe. The 10sterminationGracePeriodSecondsis then too short for a clean shutdown, so the container is SIGKILLed (exit 137) without releasing its leader lease, costing another ~45s of lease expiry per restart, after which everything reconciles at once and can spike again. - A tag-pinned GitRepository against the same monorepo in the same cluster returns instantly via the fast path — useful as a control.
Not filing this as "source-controller crashes"; the resource limits are ours to tune. The point is that the documented mitigation (add branch to get a shallow clone) does not exist, so there is no way to reduce the fetch cost of a commit pin.
Proposals
- Docs: correct the Commit example —
branch+commitrestricts the fetch to a single branch, it does not make the clone shallow. - Bounded, incremental deepening: give
cloneCommita real depth-limited fetch. Start at a modest depth, and deepen incrementally (git fetch --deepen-style) until the commit resolves, falling back to full history if it is never found. In a GitOps flow the pinned commit is usually close to the branch tip, so a first attempt at a small depth would hit the overwhelming majority of the time. A user-facing knob (e.g..spec.ref.depth, or a controller flag for the initial depth) would let people tune it. - Fast path for commit pins: move the artifact-up-to-date check ahead of the clone when
.spec.ref.commitis set. If the pinned commit equals the last observed revision and the artifact is present in storage, no fetch is needed at all.
(2) and (3) are independent; (3) alone would eliminate the recurring cost for anyone pinning commits, while (2) helps the first fetch and any genuine revision change.
Versions
- source-controller
v1.9.4 github.com/fluxcd/pkg/git v0.52.0(per source-controller'sgo.mod)git/gogit/clone.gois blobb59744db03f544e46e090a1fdbd7cdd0737a731con bothgit/v0.52.0andmainat time of writing, so this is current onmaintoo.
Happy to open a PR for the docs fix, and to help with (2)/(3) if the approach sounds right.
- Lenguaje dominante
- Go
- Estrellas
- 283
- Forks
- 258
- Merge medio
- 1 d 17 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 15
Preparar el entorno
- Incluye un Dockerfile o un archivo de Docker Compose
- Sin plantilla de pull request
- Leer la guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de fluxcd/source-controller
-
Improve documentation on debugging the controller locallyQuizá libre de nuevo @Bryandero98 la tomó hace 25 días y no hay ningún pull request abierto. Abiertoarea/docs good first issue help wanted
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 82/100
fluxcd/source-controller#666 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
area/oci enhancement
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 35/100
fluxcd/source-controller#2180 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
`OCIRepository`/cosign verification: support TSA-only trusted roots (no transparency log) for private Sigstore instances like GitHub Artifact AttestationsPosiblemente ocupada @stealthybox la tomó hace 139 días. Abiertoarea/oci area/security enhancement
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
fluxcd/source-controller#2167 · 4 comentarios · 1 reacción ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 45/100
fluxcd/source-controller#2150 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Azure Bucket: anonymous access to public containers is unreachable since #1875Posiblemente ocupada Un pull request vinculado a esta issue está abierto o ya se fusionó. Abierto
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 55/100
fluxcd/source-controller#2136 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Todos los issues de fluxcd/source-controller
Issues similares
-
[schema-coverage] elasticstack_kibana_security_detection_rulePosiblemente ocupada @github-actions la tomó hoy. Abiertoacceptance-tests phase-coding schema-coverage testing triaged
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 65/100
elastic/terraform-provider-elasticstack#5186 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
jaegertracing/jaeger#9830 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
apache/rocketmq-dashboard#6318 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 5 días
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 84/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 83/100
GoogleCloudPlatform/opentelemetry-operations-collector#710 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día