[PATCH] push --force-with-lease: Fix ref status reporting

[PATCH] push --force-with-lease: Fix ref status reporting

[Andrew Wheeler]

From: Andrew Wheeler <awheeler@motorola.com>

The --force--with-lease push option leads to less
detailed status information than --force. In particular,
the output indicates that a reference was fast-forwarded,
even when it was force-updated.

Modify the --force-with-lease ref status logic to leverage
the --force ref status logic when the "lease" conditions
are met.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Wheeler <awheeler@motorola.com>
---
 remote.c | 16 +++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index 9d34b5a..bad6213 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -1545,11 +1545,8 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
 		}
 
 		/*
-		 * Bypass the usual "must fast-forward" check but
-		 * replace it with a weaker "the old value must be
-		 * this value we observed".  If the remote ref has
-		 * moved and is now different from what we expect,
-		 * reject any push.
+		 * If the remote ref has moved and is now different
+		 * from what we expect, reject any push.
 		 *
 		 * It also is an error if the user told us to check
 		 * with the remote-tracking branch to find the value
@@ -1560,10 +1557,14 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
 			if (ref->expect_old_no_trackback ||
 			    oidcmp(&ref->old_oid, &ref->old_oid_expect))
 				reject_reason = REF_STATUS_REJECT_STALE;
+			else
+				/* If the ref isn't stale then force the update. */
+				force_ref_update = 1;
 		}
 
 		/*
-		 * The usual "must fast-forward" rules.
+		 * If the update isn't already rejected then check
+		 * the usual "must fast-forward" rules.
 		 *
 		 * Decide whether an individual refspec A:B can be
 		 * pushed.  The push will succeed if any of the
@@ -1580,9 +1581,10 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
 		 *
 		 * (4) it is forced using the +A:B notation, or by
 		 *     passing the --force argument
+		 *
 		 */
 
-		else if (!ref->deletion && !is_null_oid(&ref->old_oid)) {
+		if (!reject_reason && !ref->deletion && !is_null_oid(&ref->old_oid)) {
 			if (starts_with(ref->name, "refs/tags/"))
 				reject_reason = REF_STATUS_REJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS;
 			else if (!has_object_file(&ref->old_oid))
-- 
1.7.11.2

Re: [PATCH] push --force-with-lease: Fix ref status reporting

[Junio C Hamano]

Andrew Wheeler <agwheeler@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Andrew Wheeler <awheeler@motorola.com>
>
> The --force--with-lease push option leads to less
> detailed status information than --force. In particular,
> the output indicates that a reference was fast-forwarded,
> even when it was force-updated.
>
> Modify the --force-with-lease ref status logic to leverage
> the --force ref status logic when the "lease" conditions
> are met.

The description of the observed problem makes sense.  Thanks for
working on this.

> Signed-off-by: Andrew Wheeler <awheeler@motorola.com>
> ---
>  remote.c | 16 +++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index 9d34b5a..bad6213 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -1545,11 +1545,8 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
>  		}
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * Bypass the usual "must fast-forward" check but
> -		 * replace it with a weaker "the old value must be
> -		 * this value we observed".  If the remote ref has
> -		 * moved and is now different from what we expect,
> -		 * reject any push.
> +		 * If the remote ref has moved and is now different
> +		 * from what we expect, reject any push.
>  		 *

This simplification of the comment makes sense, especially with the
code that results from the change of the last "else if".

>  		 * It also is an error if the user told us to check
>  		 * with the remote-tracking branch to find the value
> @@ -1560,10 +1557,14 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
>  			if (ref->expect_old_no_trackback ||
>  			    oidcmp(&ref->old_oid, &ref->old_oid_expect))
>  				reject_reason = REF_STATUS_REJECT_STALE;
> +			else
> +				/* If the ref isn't stale then force the update. */
> +				force_ref_update = 1;
>  		}
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * The usual "must fast-forward" rules.
> +		 * If the update isn't already rejected then check
> +		 * the usual "must fast-forward" rules.
>  		 *
>  		 * Decide whether an individual refspec A:B can be
>  		 * pushed.  The push will succeed if any of the
> @@ -1580,9 +1581,10 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
>  		 *
>  		 * (4) it is forced using the +A:B notation, or by
>  		 *     passing the --force argument
> +		 *

This new blank line is probably unwanted.

>  		 */
>  
> -		else if (!ref->deletion && !is_null_oid(&ref->old_oid)) {
> +		if (!reject_reason && !ref->deletion && !is_null_oid(&ref->old_oid)) {
>  			if (starts_with(ref->name, "refs/tags/"))
>  				reject_reason = REF_STATUS_REJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS;
>  			else if (!has_object_file(&ref->old_oid))

OK.  So the idea is that a successful force-with-lease push would
have a zero reject_reason at this point, and the if/else cascade
would still trigger and would set it to STATUS_REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE,
just like a usual forced push without a lease.  And then because the
local variable force_ref_update is set, it would report the forced
success exactly the same way as the usual forced push.

Sounds very sensible.

Do we want to make sure that other people will not break this fix in
the future by adding a few tests, perhaps to t/t5533?

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] push --force-with-lease: Fix ref status reporting

[Andrew Wheeler]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> >                *     passing the --force argument
> > +              *
>
> This new blank line is probably unwanted.


> Do we want to make sure that other people will not break this fix in
> the future by adding a few tests, perhaps to t/t5533?
>
> Thanks.
>

Great idea. I'll add some tests to t/t5533, remove that blank line
above, and share a new patch.

Thanks for the review!

-andrew