On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Introduce %(upstream:track) to display "[ahead M, behind N]" and > %(upstream:trackshort) to display "=", ">", "<", or "<>" > appropriately (inspired by contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh). > > Now you can use the following format in for-each-ref: > > %(refname:short)%(upstream:trackshort) > > to display refs with terse tracking information. > > Note that :track and :trackshort only work with "upstream", and error > out when used with anything else. > > Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt | 6 +++++- > builtin/for-each-ref.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt > index ab3da0e..c9b192e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt > @@ -91,7 +91,11 @@ objectname:: > upstream:: > The name of a local ref which can be considered ``upstream'' > from the displayed ref. Respects `:short` in the same way as > - `refname` above. > + `refname` above. Additionally respects `:track` to show > + "[ahead N, behind M]" and `:trackshort` to show the terse > + version (like the prompt) ">", "<", "<>", or "=". Has no The "prompt" is not mentioned elsewhere in for-each-ref documentation, and a person not familiar with contrib/completion/ may be confused by this reference. It might make sense instead to explain the meanings of ">", "<", "<>", and "=" directly since they are not necessarily obvious to the casual reader. > + effect if the ref does not have tracking information > + associated with it. > > HEAD:: > Used to indicate the currently checked out branch. Is '*' if > diff --git a/builtin/for-each-ref.c b/builtin/for-each-ref.c > index 5f1842f..ed81407 100644 > --- a/builtin/for-each-ref.c > +++ b/builtin/for-each-ref.c > @@ -689,13 +690,46 @@ static void populate_value(struct refinfo *ref) > continue; > > formatp = strchr(name, ':'); > - /* look for "short" refname format */ > if (formatp) { > + int num_ours, num_theirs; > + > formatp++; > if (!strcmp(formatp, "short")) > refname = shorten_unambiguous_ref(refname, > warn_ambiguous_refs); > - else > + else if (!strcmp(formatp, "track") && > + !prefixcmp(name, "upstream")) { > + char buf[40]; > + > + stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours, &num_theirs); > + if (!num_ours && !num_theirs) > + v->s = ""; > + else if (!num_ours) { > + sprintf(buf, "[behind %d]", num_theirs); > + v->s = xstrdup(buf); > + } else if (!num_theirs) { > + sprintf(buf, "[ahead %d]", num_ours); > + v->s = xstrdup(buf); > + } else { > + sprintf(buf, "[ahead %d, behind %d]", Is the intention that these strings ("[ahead %d]", etc.) will be internationalized in the future? If so, the allocated 40-character buffer may be insufficient. > + num_ours, num_theirs); > + v->s = xstrdup(buf); > + } > + continue; > + } else if (!strcmp(formatp, "trackshort") && > + !prefixcmp(name, "upstream")) { > + > + stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours, &num_theirs); > + if (!num_ours && !num_theirs) > + v->s = "="; > + else if (!num_ours) > + v->s = "<"; > + else if (!num_theirs) > + v->s = ">"; > + else > + v->s = "<>"; > + continue; > + } else > die("unknown %.*s format %s", > (int)(formatp - name), name, formatp); Is it still accurate to call this a "format" in the error message? 'track' and 'trackshort' seem more like decorations. > } > diff --git a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh > index 5e29ffc..9d874fd 100755 > --- a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh > +++ b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh > @@ -303,6 +303,28 @@ test_expect_success 'Check short upstream format' ' > test_cmp expected actual > ' > > +test_expect_success 'setup for upstream:track[short]' ' > + test_commit two > +' > + > +cat >expected <<EOF > +[ahead 1] > +EOF > + > +test_expect_success 'Check upstream:track format' ' > + git for-each-ref --format="%(upstream:track)" refs/heads >actual && > + test_cmp expected actual > +' > + > +cat >expected <<EOF > +> > +EOF > + > +test_expect_success 'Check upstream:trackshort format' ' > + git for-each-ref --format="%(upstream:trackshort)" refs/heads >actual && > + test_cmp expected actual > +' > + > cat >expected <<EOF > $(git rev-parse --short HEAD) > EOF Would it make sense also to add tests verifying that :track and :trackshort correctly fail when applied to a key other than "upstream"? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html