Re: [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref

From

DRDamien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com>

Date

Mar 3, 2020, 16:25 UTC

Message-ID

<20200303162514.dkmulpq5fw3t6hpt@feanor>

In-Reply-To

<20200302134842.GB1176622@coredump.intra.peff.net>

From Jeff King, Mon 02 Mar 2020 at 08:48:42 (-0500) :

> And I think all of this may be duplicated with git-push itself (which
> would also be nice to get rid of, but last time I looked into it was
> hard to refactor it to do so).

I had a quick look at git-push but the duplication does not seems too bad.

> > In the 'upstream' case, the auxiliary function would return
> > branch->merge_name[0]. So the question is: can
> > tracking_for_push_dest(branch->merge_name[0]) be different from
> > branch->merge[0]->dst?

> Those will both return tracking refs. I think you just want
> merge[0]->src for the upstream case.
> And yes, the two can be different. It's the same case as when the
> upstream branch has a different name than the current branch.

I meant, now that we have branch_get_push_remoteref, can we replace
the body of branch_get_push_1 by
	remote = remote_get(pushremote_for_branch(branch, NULL));
	ret = tracking_for_push_dest(remote, branch_get_push_remoteref(branch), err);
(we would need to add error handling in branch_get_push_remoteref but that
is easy)

Currently that is exactly what branch_get_push_1 does, except in the
PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM where it returns branch->merge[0]->dst.
But branch->merge is set up in `set_merge`, where we have:
		ret->merge[i]->src = xstrdup(ret->merge_name[i]);
		...
		if (dwim_ref(ret->merge_name[i], strlen(ret->merge_name[i]),
			     &oid, &ref) == 1)
			ret->merge[i]->dst = ref;
So my question was: can dwim_ref(branch->merge[0]->src) be different from
tracking_for_push_dest(branch->merge[0]->src)?

> Yeah, I think that's going to be the easiest. It would be nice to avoid
> repeating that switch(), but frankly I think the boilerplate you'll end
> up with trying to handle the two cases may be worse than just repeating
> it.

> It may be worth adding a comment to each function to mention the
> other, and that any changes need to match.

I tried to add a comment, but I don't know if it is helpful enough.