* BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag
@ 2017-03-08 18:14 Guillaume Wenzek
2017-03-08 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Wenzek @ 2017-03-08 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Hi,
After updating to git 2.12.0 on Monday I noticed that the "git branch"
wasn't behaving as usual.
As of today `git branch -vv --no-abbrev` outputs short hashes instead
of long one (as requested by --no-abbrev)[1]
git branch -vv --no-abbrev
* (HEAD detached at 2.12.1) 1c69bf2 Add
recap-release since previous release messages didn't go out.
master eb70249
[origin/master] Fix: support parsing "git://" remote URI to Github URL
Expected output:
git branch --vv --no-abbrev
* (HEAD detached at 2.12.1)
1c69bf24be6de096d801435378be85a936ab0f29 Add recap-release since
previous release messages didn't go out.
master
eb70249e724f933255b4d8c7096092f2764942b4 [origin/master] Fix: support
parsing "git://" remote URI to Github URL
[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-branch#git-branch---no-abbrev
I don't have any relevant configuration set.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag
2017-03-08 18:14 BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag Guillaume Wenzek
@ 2017-03-08 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-08 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-03-08 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guillaume Wenzek; +Cc: git, Karthik Nayak
Guillaume Wenzek <guillaume.wenzek@gmail.com> writes:
> After updating to git 2.12.0 on Monday I noticed that the "git branch"
> wasn't behaving as usual.
Are you sure you are trying 2.12? v2.12.0 and before should behave
the same way and honor --no-abbrev as far as I know.
On the other hand, 'master' has 93e8cd8b ("Merge branch
'kn/ref-filter-branch-list'", 2017-02-27), which seems to introduce
the regression.
Karthik?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag
2017-03-08 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2017-03-08 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-08 22:16 ` [PATCH] branch: honor --abbrev/--no-abbrev in --list mode Junio C Hamano
2017-03-09 9:44 ` BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag Guillaume Wenzek
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-03-08 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karthik Nayak; +Cc: git, Guillaume Wenzek
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Guillaume Wenzek <guillaume.wenzek@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> After updating to git 2.12.0 on Monday I noticed that the "git branch"
>> wasn't behaving as usual.
>
> Are you sure you are trying 2.12? v2.12.0 and before should behave
> the same way and honor --no-abbrev as far as I know.
>
> On the other hand, 'master' has 93e8cd8b ("Merge branch
> 'kn/ref-filter-branch-list'", 2017-02-27), which seems to introduce
> the regression.
>
> Karthik?
I haven't fully checked if filter.abbrev is set correctly, but I
noticed the output format is formulated without taking the value of
filter.abbrev into account at all, so this is an attempt to fix
that omission.
I also notice that filter.abbrev is _ONLY_ used by builtin/branch.c and
the actual ref-filter code does not have to know anything about it.
We probably should eliminate filter.abbrev field from the structure
and use a regular variable in builtin/branch.c and use it to pass
the result of command line parsing from cmd_branch() down to
build_format() as an argument.
But that is outside the scope of regression fix.
builtin/branch.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
index cbaa6d03c0..537c47811a 100644
--- a/builtin/branch.c
+++ b/builtin/branch.c
@@ -335,9 +335,18 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT));
if (filter->verbose) {
+ struct strbuf obname = STRBUF_INIT;
+
+ if (filter->abbrev < 0)
+ strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname:short)");
+ else if (!filter->abbrev)
+ strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname)");
+ else
+ strbuf_addf(&obname, " %%(objectname:short=%d) ", filter->abbrev);
+
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(align:%d,left)%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)", maxwidth);
strbuf_addf(&local, "%s", branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
- strbuf_addf(&local, " %%(objectname:short=7) ");
+ strbuf_addf(&local, " %s ", obname.buf);
if (filter->verbose > 1)
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(upstream)%%(then)[%s%%(upstream:short)%s%%(if)%%(upstream:track)"
@@ -346,10 +355,12 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
else
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(upstream:track)%%(then)%%(upstream:track) %%(end)%%(contents:subject)");
- strbuf_addf(&remote, "%s%%(align:%d,left)%s%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)%s%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)"
- "%%(else) %%(objectname:short=7) %%(contents:subject)%%(end)",
+ strbuf_addf(&remote, "%s%%(align:%d,left)%s%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)%s"
+ "%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)"
+ "%%(else) %s %%(contents:subject)%%(end)",
branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_REMOTE), maxwidth, quote_literal_for_format(remote_prefix),
- branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
+ branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET), obname.buf);
+ strbuf_release(&obname);
} else {
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(refname:lstrip=2)%s%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)%%(end)",
branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] branch: honor --abbrev/--no-abbrev in --list mode
2017-03-08 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2017-03-08 22:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-09 13:25 ` Jakub Narębski
2017-03-09 9:44 ` BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag Guillaume Wenzek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-03-08 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Karthik Nayak, Guillaume Wenzek
When the "branch --list" command was converted to use the --format
facility from the ref-filter API, we forgot to honor the --abbrev
setting in the default output format and instead used a hardcoded
"7".
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
* This time with test. I am building directly this fix on top of
the kn/ref-filter-branch-test topic that was merged to 'master'
after 2.12, and haven't checked if there will be conflicts with
other topics in-flight (I am expecting none, but I do not know
until I start today's integration cycle).
builtin/branch.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
t/t3200-branch.sh | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
index cbaa6d03c0..537c47811a 100644
--- a/builtin/branch.c
+++ b/builtin/branch.c
@@ -335,9 +335,18 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT));
if (filter->verbose) {
+ struct strbuf obname = STRBUF_INIT;
+
+ if (filter->abbrev < 0)
+ strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname:short)");
+ else if (!filter->abbrev)
+ strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname)");
+ else
+ strbuf_addf(&obname, " %%(objectname:short=%d) ", filter->abbrev);
+
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(align:%d,left)%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)", maxwidth);
strbuf_addf(&local, "%s", branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
- strbuf_addf(&local, " %%(objectname:short=7) ");
+ strbuf_addf(&local, " %s ", obname.buf);
if (filter->verbose > 1)
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(upstream)%%(then)[%s%%(upstream:short)%s%%(if)%%(upstream:track)"
@@ -346,10 +355,12 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
else
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(upstream:track)%%(then)%%(upstream:track) %%(end)%%(contents:subject)");
- strbuf_addf(&remote, "%s%%(align:%d,left)%s%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)%s%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)"
- "%%(else) %%(objectname:short=7) %%(contents:subject)%%(end)",
+ strbuf_addf(&remote, "%s%%(align:%d,left)%s%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)%s"
+ "%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)"
+ "%%(else) %s %%(contents:subject)%%(end)",
branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_REMOTE), maxwidth, quote_literal_for_format(remote_prefix),
- branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
+ branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET), obname.buf);
+ strbuf_release(&obname);
} else {
strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(refname:lstrip=2)%s%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)%%(end)",
branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh
index 8a833f354e..39bd5ac8fa 100755
--- a/t/t3200-branch.sh
+++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh
@@ -207,6 +207,31 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch --list -d t should fail' '
test_path_is_missing .git/refs/heads/t
'
+test_expect_success 'git branch --list -v with --abbrev' '
+ test_when_finished "git branch -D t" &&
+ git branch t &&
+ git branch -v --list t >actual.default &&
+ git branch -v --list --abbrev t >actual.abbrev &&
+ test_cmp actual.default actual.abbrev &&
+
+ git branch -v --list --no-abbrev t >actual.noabbrev &&
+ git branch -v --list --abbrev=0 t >actual.0abbrev &&
+ test_cmp actual.noabbrev actual.0abbrev &&
+
+ git branch -v --list --abbrev=36 t >actual.36abbrev &&
+ # how many hexdigits are used?
+ read name objdefault rest <actual.abbrev &&
+ read name obj36 rest <actual.36abbrev &&
+ objfull=$(git rev-parse --verify t) &&
+
+ # are we really getting abbreviations?
+ test "$obj36" != "$objdefault" &&
+ expr "$obj36" : "$objdefault" >/dev/null &&
+ test "$objfull" != "$obj36" &&
+ expr "$objfull" : "$obj36" >/dev/null
+
+'
+
test_expect_success 'git branch --column' '
COLUMNS=81 git branch --column=column >actual &&
cat >expected <<\EOF &&
--
2.12.0.246.ga2ecc84866-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag
2017-03-08 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-08 22:16 ` [PATCH] branch: honor --abbrev/--no-abbrev in --list mode Junio C Hamano
@ 2017-03-09 9:44 ` Guillaume Wenzek
2017-03-09 10:38 ` Jeff King
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Wenzek @ 2017-03-09 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Karthik Nayak, git
Thanks for looking into it,
The full version number is "2.12.0.246.ga2ecc84866" but I don't think
that's an official number, I'm using my company (Google) apt
repository.
The git package date is 2017/03/03 while previous version was from
2017/02/16, the commit you identified is actually between the two, so
that may be it.
On 8 March 2017 at 22:59, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Guillaume Wenzek <guillaume.wenzek@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> After updating to git 2.12.0 on Monday I noticed that the "git branch"
>>> wasn't behaving as usual.
>>
>> Are you sure you are trying 2.12? v2.12.0 and before should behave
>> the same way and honor --no-abbrev as far as I know.
>>
>> On the other hand, 'master' has 93e8cd8b ("Merge branch
>> 'kn/ref-filter-branch-list'", 2017-02-27), which seems to introduce
>> the regression.
>>
>> Karthik?
>
> I haven't fully checked if filter.abbrev is set correctly, but I
> noticed the output format is formulated without taking the value of
> filter.abbrev into account at all, so this is an attempt to fix
> that omission.
>
> I also notice that filter.abbrev is _ONLY_ used by builtin/branch.c and
> the actual ref-filter code does not have to know anything about it.
>
> We probably should eliminate filter.abbrev field from the structure
> and use a regular variable in builtin/branch.c and use it to pass
> the result of command line parsing from cmd_branch() down to
> build_format() as an argument.
>
> But that is outside the scope of regression fix.
>
>
> builtin/branch.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
> index cbaa6d03c0..537c47811a 100644
> --- a/builtin/branch.c
> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
> @@ -335,9 +335,18 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
> branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT));
>
> if (filter->verbose) {
> + struct strbuf obname = STRBUF_INIT;
> +
> + if (filter->abbrev < 0)
> + strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname:short)");
> + else if (!filter->abbrev)
> + strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname)");
> + else
> + strbuf_addf(&obname, " %%(objectname:short=%d) ", filter->abbrev);
> +
> strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(align:%d,left)%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)", maxwidth);
> strbuf_addf(&local, "%s", branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
> - strbuf_addf(&local, " %%(objectname:short=7) ");
> + strbuf_addf(&local, " %s ", obname.buf);
>
> if (filter->verbose > 1)
> strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(upstream)%%(then)[%s%%(upstream:short)%s%%(if)%%(upstream:track)"
> @@ -346,10 +355,12 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
> else
> strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(upstream:track)%%(then)%%(upstream:track) %%(end)%%(contents:subject)");
>
> - strbuf_addf(&remote, "%s%%(align:%d,left)%s%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)%s%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)"
> - "%%(else) %%(objectname:short=7) %%(contents:subject)%%(end)",
> + strbuf_addf(&remote, "%s%%(align:%d,left)%s%%(refname:lstrip=2)%%(end)%s"
> + "%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)"
> + "%%(else) %s %%(contents:subject)%%(end)",
> branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_REMOTE), maxwidth, quote_literal_for_format(remote_prefix),
> - branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
> + branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET), obname.buf);
> + strbuf_release(&obname);
> } else {
> strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(refname:lstrip=2)%s%%(if)%%(symref)%%(then) -> %%(symref:short)%%(end)",
> branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_RESET));
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag
2017-03-09 9:44 ` BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag Guillaume Wenzek
@ 2017-03-09 10:38 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2017-03-09 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guillaume Wenzek; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Karthik Nayak, git
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:44:42AM +0100, Guillaume Wenzek wrote:
> The full version number is "2.12.0.246.ga2ecc84866" but I don't think
> that's an official number, I'm using my company (Google) apt
> repository.
That's built from the commit at a2ecc84866, which is in the "next"
branch (and is 246 commits ahead of v2.12.0). So that explains why you
are seeing the behavior. The code _isn't_ in v2.12.0, but you're running
a much more recent version.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] branch: honor --abbrev/--no-abbrev in --list mode
2017-03-08 22:16 ` [PATCH] branch: honor --abbrev/--no-abbrev in --list mode Junio C Hamano
@ 2017-03-09 13:25 ` Jakub Narębski
2017-03-10 16:45 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narębski @ 2017-03-09 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano, git; +Cc: Karthik Nayak, Guillaume Wenzek
W dniu 08.03.2017 o 23:16, Junio C Hamano pisze:
> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
> index cbaa6d03c0..537c47811a 100644
> --- a/builtin/branch.c
> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
> @@ -335,9 +335,18 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
> branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT));
>
> if (filter->verbose) {
> + struct strbuf obname = STRBUF_INIT;
> +
> + if (filter->abbrev < 0)
> + strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname:short)");
> + else if (!filter->abbrev)
> + strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname)");
> + else
> + strbuf_addf(&obname, " %%(objectname:short=%d) ", filter->abbrev);
^ ^
I wonder why the last one has leading space --/ and trailing one -----/
The rest (for default abbrev and for no abbrev do not).
--
Jakub Narębski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] branch: honor --abbrev/--no-abbrev in --list mode
2017-03-09 13:25 ` Jakub Narębski
@ 2017-03-10 16:45 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-03-10 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Narębski; +Cc: git, Karthik Nayak, Guillaume Wenzek
Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> W dniu 08.03.2017 o 23:16, Junio C Hamano pisze:
>
>> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
>> index cbaa6d03c0..537c47811a 100644
>> --- a/builtin/branch.c
>> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
>> @@ -335,9 +335,18 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r
>> branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT));
>>
>> if (filter->verbose) {
>> + struct strbuf obname = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +
>> + if (filter->abbrev < 0)
>> + strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname:short)");
>> + else if (!filter->abbrev)
>> + strbuf_addf(&obname, "%%(objectname)");
>> + else
>> + strbuf_addf(&obname, " %%(objectname:short=%d) ", filter->abbrev);
> ^ ^
> I wonder why the last one has leading space --/ and trailing one -----/
> The rest (for default abbrev and for no abbrev do not).
Thanks for spotting; that's just an editor cruft that shouldn't have
been there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-10 16:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-03-08 18:14 BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag Guillaume Wenzek
2017-03-08 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-08 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-08 22:16 ` [PATCH] branch: honor --abbrev/--no-abbrev in --list mode Junio C Hamano
2017-03-09 13:25 ` Jakub Narębski
2017-03-10 16:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-09 9:44 ` BUG Report: git branch ignore --no-abbrev flag Guillaume Wenzek
2017-03-09 10:38 ` Jeff King
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).