From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com>
Cc: J Wyman <jwyman@microsoft.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org,
Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:23:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200228182349.GA1408759@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200228172455.1734888-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:24:55PM +0100, Damien Robert wrote:
> To get the meaning of push:remoteref, ref-filter.c calls
> remote_ref_for_branch.
>
> However remote_ref_for_branch only handles the case of a specified refspec.
> The other cases treated by branch_get_push_1 are the mirror case,
> PUSH_DEFAULT_{NOTHING,MATCHING,CURRENT,UPSTREAM,UNSPECIFIED,SIMPLE}.
Just to back up a minute to the user-visible problem, it's that:
git config push.default matching
git for-each-ref --format='%(push)'
git for-each-ref --format='%(push:remoteref)'
prints a useful tracking ref for the first for-each-ref, but an empty
string for the second. That feature (and remote_ref_for_branch) come
from 9700fae5ee (for-each-ref: let upstream/push report the remote ref
name, 2017-11-07). Author cc'd for guidance.
I wonder if %(upstream:remoteref) has similar problems, but I suppose
not (it doesn't have this implicit config, so we'd always either have a
remote ref or we'd have no upstream at all).
> In all these cases, either there is no push remote, or the remote_ref is
> branch->refname. So we can handle all these cases by returning
> branch->refname, provided that remote is not empty.
In the case of "upstream", the names could be different, couldn't they?
If I do this:
git init parent
git -C parent commit --allow-empty -m foo
git clone parent child
cd child
git branch --track mybranch origin/master
git config push.default upstream
git for-each-ref \
--format='push=%(push), remoteref=%(push:remoteref)' \
refs/heads/mybranch
the current code gives no remoteref value, which seems wrong. But with
your patch I'd get "refs/heads/mybranch", which is also wrong.
I think you're right that all of the other cases would always use the
same refname on the remote.
> remote.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
We'd want some test coverage to make sure this doesn't regress. There
are already some tests covering this feature in t6300. And indeed, your
patch causes them to fail when checking a "simple" push case (but I
think I'd argue the current expected value there is wrong). That should
be expanded to cover the "upstream" case, too, once we figure out how to
get it right.
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index 593ce297ed..75e42b1e36 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ const char *remote_ref_for_branch(struct branch *branch, int for_push,
> *explicit = 1;
> return dst;
> }
> + else if (remote) {
> + if (explicit)
> + *explicit = 1;
> + return branch->refname;
> + }
Saying "*explicit = 1" here seems weird. Isn't the whole point that
these modes _aren't_ explicit?
It looks like our only caller will ignore our return value unless we say
"explicit", though. I have to wonder what the point of that flag is,
versus just returning NULL when we don't have anything to return.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-28 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-28 17:24 [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref Damien Robert
2020-02-28 18:23 ` Jeff King [this message]
2020-03-01 22:05 ` Damien Robert
2020-03-02 13:32 ` Jeff King
2020-03-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Damien Robert
2020-03-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] remote: drop "explicit" parameter from remote_ref_for_branch() Damien Robert
2020-03-03 17:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 21:11 ` Jeff King
2020-03-03 22:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref) Damien Robert
2020-03-03 16:29 ` Damien Robert
2020-03-03 18:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 18:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 22:24 ` Damien Robert
2020-03-03 22:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-12 16:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/1] " Damien Robert
2020-03-25 22:16 ` Damien Robert
2020-03-27 22:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-28 22:25 ` Damien Robert
2020-03-28 13:15 ` Jeff King
2020-03-28 13:31 ` Jeff King
2020-04-16 15:12 ` Damien Robert
2020-04-06 16:04 ` Damien Robert
2020-04-06 21:46 ` Jeff King
2020-04-06 17:56 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] %(push) and %(push:remoteref) bug fixes Damien Robert
2020-04-06 17:56 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] remote.c: fix %(push) for triangular workflows Damien Robert
2020-04-06 17:56 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref) Damien Robert
2020-04-16 15:03 ` [PATCH v8 1/1] " Damien Robert
2020-04-16 15:21 ` Damien Robert
2020-09-03 22:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-11 21:43 ` Damien Robert
2020-09-14 22:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 16:16 ` [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref Damien Robert
2020-03-02 13:48 ` Jeff King
2020-03-03 16:25 ` Damien Robert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200228182349.GA1408759@coredump.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com \
--cc=damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jwyman@microsoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).