Re: [PATCH] worktree: teach "add" to check out existing branches

From: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 22, 2018, 20:17 UTC
Message-ID: <20180122201728.GA2130@hank>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8D9LS7e=cVE3Fq2qOnxK5++nFg2vjuhkNtRO-Bx0X1j6w@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/22, Duy Nguyen wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >  +
> >  If `<commit-ish>` is omitted and neither `-b` nor `-B` nor `--detach` used,
> > -then, as a convenience, a new branch based at HEAD is created automatically,
> > -as if `-b $(basename <path>)` was specified.
> > +then, as a convenience, a worktree with a branch named after
> > +`$(basename <path>)` (call it `<branch>`) is created.  If `<branch>`
> > +doesn't exist, a new branch based on HEAD is automatically created as
> > +if `-b <branch>` was given.  If `<branch>` exists in the repository,
> > +it will be checked out in the new worktree, if it's not checked out
> > +anywhere else, otherwise the command will refuse to create the
> > +worktree.
> 
> It starts getting a bit too magical to me. We probably should print
> something "switching to branch..." or "creating new branch ..."  to
> let people know what decision was taken, unless --quiet is given. Yeah
> I know --quiet does not exist. You don't need to add it now either
> since nobody has asked for it.

I think that's a good idea.  I'll add that, thanks.

Show 5 quoted lines

> More or less related to this, there was a question [1] whether we
> could do better than $(basename <path>) for determining branch name.
> Since you're doing start to check if a branch exists, people may start
> asking to check for branch "foo/bar" from the path abc/foo/bar instead
> of just branch "bar".

Thanks for pointing me at this. I feel like we might get ourselves some backwards compatibility worries when doing that. Lets say someone has a branch 'feature/a', using 'git worktree feature/a' would currently create a new branch 'a', and does not die.

I'd guess most users would want 'feature/a' checked out in that case, but we can't exactly be sure we won't break anyones workflow here. With your suggestion I guess that would be mitigated somehow as it shows which action is taken, but dunno.

Should we hide this behaviour behind a flag, and plan for it eventually becoming the default?

Show 24 quoted lines

> [1] https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/1390
> 
> >
> >  list::
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/worktree.c b/builtin/worktree.c
> > index 7cef5b120b..148a864bb9 100644
> > --- a/builtin/worktree.c
> > +++ b/builtin/worktree.c
> > @@ -411,13 +411,21 @@ static int add(int ac, const char **av, const char *prefix)
> >         if (ac < 2 && !opts.new_branch && !opts.detach) {
> >                 int n;
> >                 const char *s = worktree_basename(path, &n);
> > -               opts.new_branch = xstrndup(s, n);
> > -               if (guess_remote) {
> > -                       struct object_id oid;
> > -                       const char *remote =
> > -                               unique_tracking_name(opts.new_branch, &oid);
> > -                       if (remote)
> > -                               branch = remote;
> > +               const char *branchname = xstrndup(s, n);
> > +               struct strbuf ref = STRBUF_INIT;
> 
> Perhaps a blank line after this to separate var declarations and the rest.

Will add.

Show 5 quoted lines

> > +               if (!strbuf_check_branch_ref(&ref, branchname) &&
> > +                   ref_exists(ref.buf)) {
> > +                       branch = branchname;
> 
> Hmm.. do we need UNLEAK(branch);? Maybe you should try valgrind, I'm not sure.

Good question, I'll have a look, thanks.

Show 51 quoted lines

> > +                       opts.checkout = 1;
> > +               } else {
> > +                       opts.new_branch = branchname;
> > +                       if (guess_remote) {
> > +                               struct object_id oid;
> > +                               const char *remote =
> > +                                       unique_tracking_name(opts.new_branch, &oid);
> > +                               if (remote)
> > +                                       branch = remote;
> > +                       }
> >                 }
> >         }
> >
> > diff --git a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
> > index 2b95944973..721b0e4c26 100755
> > --- a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
> > +++ b/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
> > @@ -198,13 +198,22 @@ test_expect_success '"add" with <branch> omitted' '
> >         test_cmp_rev HEAD bat
> >  '
> >
> > -test_expect_success '"add" auto-vivify does not clobber existing branch' '
> > +test_expect_success '"add" auto-vivify checks out existing branch' '
> >         test_commit c1 &&
> >         test_commit c2 &&
> >         git branch precious HEAD~1 &&
> > -       test_must_fail git worktree add precious &&
> > +       git worktree add precious &&
> >         test_cmp_rev HEAD~1 precious &&
> > -       test_path_is_missing precious
> > +       (
> > +               cd precious &&
> > +               test_cmp_rev precious HEAD
> > +       )
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success '"add" auto-vivify fails with checked out branch' '
> > +       git checkout -b test-branch &&
> > +       test_must_fail git worktree add test-branch &&
> > +       test_path_is_missing test-branch
> >  '
> >
> >  test_expect_success '"add" no auto-vivify with --detach and <branch> omitted' '
> > --
> > 2.16.0.312.g896df04e46
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Duy