Re: [PATCH v5] tracking branches: add advice to ambiguous refspec error

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30 2022, Tao Klerks via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> Nit: I think it's been Junio's preference not to introduce C99 comments,

> > @@ -219,6 +233,7 @@ static int inherit_tracking(struct tracking *tracking, const char *orig_ref)
> >       return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +
>
> Stray whitespace?

>
> >  /*
> >   * Used internally to set the branch.<new_ref>.{remote,merge} config
> >   * settings so that branch 'new_ref' tracks 'orig_ref'. Unlike
> > @@ -232,12 +247,16 @@ static void setup_tracking(const char *new_ref, const char *orig_ref,
> >       struct tracking tracking;
> >       struct string_list tracking_srcs = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> >       int config_flags = quiet ? 0 : BRANCH_CONFIG_VERBOSE;
> > +     struct find_tracked_branch_cb ftb_cb = {
> > +             .tracking = &tracking,
> > +             .ambiguous_remotes = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP,
> > +     };
> >
> >       memset(&tracking, 0, sizeof(tracking));
> >       tracking.spec.dst = (char *)orig_ref;
> >       tracking.srcs = &tracking_srcs;
> >       if (track != BRANCH_TRACK_INHERIT)
> > -             for_each_remote(find_tracked_branch, &tracking);
> > +             for_each_remote(find_tracked_branch, &ftb_cb);
> >       else if (inherit_tracking(&tracking, orig_ref))
> >               goto cleanup;
> >
> > @@ -252,9 +271,38 @@ static void setup_tracking(const char *new_ref, const char *orig_ref,
> >                       goto cleanup;
> >               }
> >
> > -     if (tracking.matches > 1)
> > -             die(_("not tracking: ambiguous information for ref %s"),
> > -                 orig_ref);
> > +     if (tracking.matches > 1) {
> > +             int status = die_message(_("not tracking: ambiguous information for ref %s"),
> > +                                         orig_ref);
>
> This isn't per-se new, but I wonder if while we're at it we shold just
> quote '%s' here, which we'd usually do. I.e. this message isn't new, but
> referring again to "ref %s" (and not "ref '%s'") below is.
>

> > +             if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_AMBIGUOUS_FETCH_REFSPEC)) {
> > +                     struct strbuf remotes_advice = STRBUF_INIT;
> > +                     struct string_list_item *item;
> > +
> > +                     for_each_string_list_item(item, &ftb_cb.ambiguous_remotes) {
>
> Nit: drop braces, not needed.

>
> > +                             /*
> > +                              * TRANSLATORS: This is a line listing a remote with duplicate
> > +                              * refspecs in the advice message below. For RTL languages you'll
> > +                              * probably want to swap the "%s" and leading "  " space around.
> > +                              */
> > +                             strbuf_addf(&remotes_advice, _("  %s\n"), item->string);
> > +                     }
> > +
>
> Per the TRANSLATORS comments in get_short_oid(), it's also good to have
> one here in front of advice(). E.g.:
>
>         /*
>          * TRANSLATORS: The second argument is a \n-delimited list of
>          * duplicate refspecs, composed above.
>         */
>

> > +                     advise(_("There are multiple remotes whose fetch refspecs map to the remote\n"
> > +                              "tracking ref %s:\n"
> > +                              "%s"
> > +                              "\n"
> > +                              "This is typically a configuration error.\n"
> > +                              "\n"
> > +                              "To support setting up tracking branches, ensure that\n"
> > +                              "different remotes' fetch refspecs map into different\n"
> > +                              "tracking namespaces."),
> > +                            orig_ref,
> > +                            remotes_advice.buf
> > +                            );
>
> Nit: The usual style for multi-line arguments is to "fill" lines until
> you're at 79 characters, so these last three lines (including the ");")
> can all go on the "tracking namespaces" line (until they're at 79, then
> wrap)>
>

> > +                     strbuf_release(&remotes_advice);
> > +             }
> > +             exit(status);
> > +     }
>
> Other than the minor nits noted above this version looks good to me, and
> I think addresses both the translation concerns I brought up, and the
> "let's not do advice() work if we don't need it" concern by Junio et al.
>