BOMPARD CORENTIN p1603631 <corentin.bompard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Adding the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
We usually write commit messages with imperative tone, hence "add", not
"adding".
> + /*
> + * We want to set the current branch config following the
> + * ref_map entry which fetches on FETCH_HEAD
fetches _to_? And period at end of sentence.
> + * In case of "git pull <remote> --set-upstream" we
> + * don't want to set all branches' config.
> + * If there is no local ref which points on FETCH_HEAD
Indentation is weird. If you're just writting sentences, just wrap the
text 1 column away from the "*", and to make paragraphs, add blank lines
(containing just "*") between paragraphs.
> + * we don't set the config for the current branch
> + * and warn the user.
> + * If there is a fetch of more than one branch for example:
> + * "git pull <remote> <branch> <branch> --set-upstream"
> + * setting the current branch's config makes no sense.
> + * Where we are in case of "git pull <remote> <branch>:<branch>" we
> + * don't want to set the config for the local branch
> + * can be improved in the future to set local branch's config.
> + */
I'm biaised because we talked about this in real-life, but I find the
explanation unclear. I'd write stg like
/*
* We're setting the upstream configuration for the current branch. The
* relevant upstream is the fetched branch that is meant to be merged with
* the current one, i.e. the one fetched to FETCH_HEAD.
*
* When there are several such branches, consider the request ambiguous and
* err on the safe side by doing nothing and just emit a warning.
*/
I think the discussion about the various use-case that may lead to
different cases (0, 1 or >1 branches fetched to FETCH_HEAD) is not
needed here, but can be relevant comments in the tests.
> + for (rm = ref_map; rm; rm = rm->next) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "\n -%s", rm->name);
> + if (rm->peer_ref) {
> + fprintf(stderr, " -> %s", rm->peer_ref->name);
> + } else {
> + if (target) {
> + fprintf(stderr, " -> FETCH_HEAD\n");
> + warning(_("Multiple FETCH_HEAD"));
Is this a debug statement or a real warning? In the later case, it
should be made clearer to the user.
> + target = NULL;
> + break;
> + } else {
> + target = rm;
This is the branch you're fetching from, right? If so, "target" is a
misleading name. Perhaps source_ref?
> + fprintf(stderr, " -> FETCH_HEAD");
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + fprintf(stderr, "\n\n");
> + if (target) {
> + if (!strcmp(ref_map->name, "HEAD") ||
> + starts_with(ref_map->name, "refs/heads/")) {
Weird indentation. Perhaps you have a tab-width != 8?
More importantly, shouldn't ref_map->name be target->name here?
> + install_branch_config(0, branch->name,
> + transport->remote->name,
> + target->name);
> + } else if (starts_with(ref_map->name, "refs/remotes/")) {
> + warning(_("Not setting upstream for a remote remote-tracking branch"));
> + } else if (starts_with(ref_map->name, "refs/tags/")) {
> + warning(_("Tag upstream not set"));
> + } else {
> + warning(_("Unknown branch type"));
> + }
> + } else {
> + warning(_("Fetching more than one branch. Current branch's upstream not set"));
The warning seems misleading to me: this else branch is executed in many
cases (described in the comment above), not only when there's more than
one branch, right?
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t5553-set-upstream.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='"git fetch/pull --set-upstream" basic tests.
> +
> +'
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +
> +
> +check_config() {
> + (echo $2; echo $3) >expect.$1
> + (git config branch.$1.remote
> + git config branch.$1.merge) >actual.$1
> + test_cmp expect.$1 actual.$1
> +}
> +
> +check_config_empty() {
> + git config branch.$1.remote >remote.$1
> + test_must_be_empty remote.$1
> + git config branch.$1.merge >merge.$1
> + test_must_be_empty merge.$1
> +}
Broken &&-chain (in both functions, but most importantly in the second,
where the first test_must_be_empty is useless without &&.
> +test_expect_success 'fetch --set-upstream does not set branch other' '
Misleading test name: "set branch" -> "set upstream"? And here it's not
just about "other" but about all branches.
'fetch --set-upstream does not set upstream w/o branch'
?
> + git checkout master &&
> + git fetch --set-upstream upstream &&
> + check_config_empty master &&
> + check_config_empty other
> +'
> +#test_expect_success 'fetch --set-upstream does not set branch other' '
> +# git checkout master &&
> +# git fetch --set-upstream upstream &&
> +# check_config master upstream refs/heads/master &&
> +# check_config_empty other
> +#'
Avoid leaving leftovers like this, even in WIP patches, they distract
the reader.
> +test_expect_success 'fetch --set-upstream upstream master sets branch master but not other' '
> + git fetch --set-upstream upstream master &&
> + check_config master upstream refs/heads/master &&
> + check_config_empty other
> +'
> +
> +
Style: you sometimes leave 2 blank lines, sometimes 1 between tests. Try
to be consistent.
> +test_expect_success 'pull --set-upstream upstream other sets branch other' '
Test title and content say the opposite of each other.
> + git pull --set-upstream upstream other &&
> + check_config master upstream refs/heads/other &&
> + check_config_empty other
> +'
> +test_expect_success 'pull --set-upstream http://nosuchdomain.example.com fails with the bad url' '
> + test_must_fail git pull --set-upstream http://nosuchdomain.example.com
> +'
You should check that it doesn't touch the config. That it fails is not
a surprise regardless of the correctness of your code, but the thing to
check is that it does not touch the config before failing.
> +test_expect_success 'pull --set-upstream upstream with more than one branch does nothing' '
Here also, test title and content say different things. Probably you
need to reset the config and use check_config_empty.
> + git pull --set-upstream upstream master three &&
> + check_config master upstream HEAD &&
> + check_config_empty three
> +'
--
Matthieu Moy
https://matthieu-moy.fr/
