Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref)
- From
- Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2020, 16:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20200406160439.gg5uu6kepnyxpvuc@feanor>
- In-Reply-To
- <20200328131553.GA643242@coredump.intra.peff.net>
From Jeff King, Sat 28 Mar 2020 at 09:15:53 (-0400) :
> The tests makes sense to me, though I found a few nits to pick:
[...]
So I updated the tests as follow. I put them in another test, as you suggested, this is indeed much clearer.
test_expect_success ':push:remoteref' ' git init remote-tests && ( cd remote-tests && test_commit initial && git remote add from fifth.coffee:blub && git config branch.master.remote from && actual="$(git -c push.default=simple for-each-ref \ --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref)" \ refs/heads/master)" && test from, = "$actual" && git config branch.master.merge refs/heads/master && actual="$(git -c push.default=simple for-each-ref \ --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref)" \ refs/heads/master)" && test from,refs/heads/master = "$actual" && git config branch.master.merge refs/heads/other && actual="$(git -c push.default=simple for-each-ref \ --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref)" \ refs/heads/master)" && test from, = "$actual" && actual="$(git -c push.default=upstream for-each-ref \ --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref)" \ refs/heads/master)" && test from,refs/heads/other = "$actual" && actual="$(git -c push.default=current for-each-ref \ --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref)" \ refs/heads/master)" && test from,refs/heads/master = "$actual" && actual="$(git -c push.default=matching for-each-ref \ --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref)" \ refs/heads/master)" && test from,refs/heads/master = "$actual" && actual="$(git -c push.default=nothing for-each-ref \ --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref)" \ refs/heads/master)" && test from, = "$actual" ) '
And the test works with my patch.
So I decided for completude to also test with git config branch.master.pushRemote to to test with a triangular workflow, and I found several (already existing) bugs.
Heres what happen with such a triangular workflow when we do a `git push`:
- with push.default=simple, we have
case PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE:
if (triangular)
setup_push_current(remote, branch);
else
setup_push_upstream(remote, branch, triangular, 1);
break;
so the current branch is always pushed.
- with push.default=upstream, we have
case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM:
setup_push_upstream(remote, branch, triangular, 0);
break;
which then gives
if (triangular)
die(_("You are pushing to remote '%s', which is not the upstream of\n"
"your current branch '%s', without telling me what to push\n"
"to update which remote branch."),By the way this matches what the documentation says.
However here is the result of git -c push.default=$value for-each-ref --format="%(push:remotename),%(push:remoteref),%(push)" refs/heads/master for $value= - simple: to,, - upstream: to,refs/heads/other,refs/remotes/from/other
Note that without my patch the %(push:remoteref) values would always be empty, but my patch does not touch %(push).
So in both branch_get_push_1 and branch_get_push_remoteref I should first detect if we have a triangular workflow, and update the logic of the code accordingly.