Re: [PATCH v5 12/10] remote-bzr: support the new 'force' option
- From
- Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com>
- Date
- Nov 11, 2013, 18:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <52811E1F.4090500@bbn.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <5280c4bc4354a_36a51059e74ea@nysa.notmuch>
On 2013-11-11 06:51, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 65 quoted lines
> Richard Hansen wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com>
>> ---
>> contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> contrib/remote-helpers/test-bzr.sh | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
>> index 7e34532..ba693d1 100755
>> --- a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
>> +++ b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ import json
>> import re
>> import StringIO
>> import atexit, shutil, hashlib, urlparse, subprocess
>> +import types
>>
>> NAME_RE = re.compile('^([^<>]+)')
>> AUTHOR_RE = re.compile('^([^<>]+?)? ?[<>]([^<>]*)(?:$|>)')
>> @@ -684,7 +685,8 @@ def do_export(parser):
>> peer = bzrlib.branch.Branch.open(peers[name],
>> possible_transports=transports)
>> try:
>> - peer.bzrdir.push_branch(branch, revision_id=revid)
>> + peer.bzrdir.push_branch(branch, revision_id=revid,
>> + overwrite=force)
>> except bzrlib.errors.DivergedBranches:
>> print "error %s non-fast forward" % ref
>> continue
>> @@ -718,8 +720,34 @@ def do_capabilities(parser):
>> print "*import-marks %s" % path
>> print "*export-marks %s" % path
>>
>> + print "option"
>> print
>>
>> +class InvalidOptionValue(Exception):
>> + pass
>> +
>> +def do_option(parser):
>> + (opt, val) = parser[1:3]
>> + handler = globals().get('do_option_' + opt)
>> + if handler and type(handler) == types.FunctionType:
>> + try:
>> + handler(val)
>> + except InvalidOptionValue:
>> + print "error '%s' is not a valid value for option '%s'" % (val, opt)
>> + else:
>> + print "unsupported"
>> +
>> +def do_bool_option(val):
>> + if val == 'true': ret = True
>> + elif val == 'false': ret = False
>> + else: raise InvalidOptionValue()
>> + print "ok"
>> + return ret
>> +
>> +def do_option_force(val):
>> + global force
>> + force = do_bool_option(val)
>> +
>
> While this organization has merit, I think it's overkill for a single option,
> or just a couple of them. If in the future we add more, we might revisit this,
> for the moment something like this would suffice:OK, I'll reroll.
Show 15 quoted lines
>
> class InvalidOptionValue(Exception):
> pass
>
> def get_bool_option(val):
> if val == 'true':
> return True
> elif val == 'false':
> return False
> else:
> raise InvalidOptionValue()
>
> def do_option(parser):
> global force
> _, key, value = parser.line.split(' ')I'm surprised you prefer this over 'key, val = parser[1:3]' or even '_, key, val = parser[:]'. Are you intending to eventually remove Parser.__getitem__()?
Thanks, Richard
Show 10 quoted lines
> try: > if key == 'force': > force = get_bool_option(value) > print 'ok' > else: > print 'unsupported' > except InvalidOptionValue: > print "error '%s' is not a valid value for option '%s'" % (value, key) > > Cheers.