On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:24:55PM +0100, Damien Robert wrote:
> To get the meaning of push:remoteref, ref-filter.c calls
> remote_ref_for_branch.
>
> However remote_ref_for_branch only handles the case of a specified refspec.
> The other cases treated by branch_get_push_1 are the mirror case,
> PUSH_DEFAULT_{NOTHING,MATCHING,CURRENT,UPSTREAM,UNSPECIFIED,SIMPLE}.
Just to back up a minute to the user-visible problem, it's that:
git config push.default matching
git for-each-ref --format='%(push)'
git for-each-ref --format='%(push:remoteref)'
prints a useful tracking ref for the first for-each-ref, but an empty
string for the second. That feature (and remote_ref_for_branch) come
from 9700fae5ee (for-each-ref: let upstream/push report the remote ref
name, 2017-11-07). Author cc'd for guidance.
I wonder if %(upstream:remoteref) has similar problems, but I suppose
not (it doesn't have this implicit config, so we'd always either have a
remote ref or we'd have no upstream at all).
> In all these cases, either there is no push remote, or the remote_ref is
> branch->refname. So we can handle all these cases by returning
> branch->refname, provided that remote is not empty.
In the case of "upstream", the names could be different, couldn't they?
If I do this:
git init parent
git -C parent commit --allow-empty -m foo
git clone parent child
cd child
git branch --track mybranch origin/master
git config push.default upstream
git for-each-ref \
--format='push=%(push), remoteref=%(push:remoteref)' \
refs/heads/mybranch
the current code gives no remoteref value, which seems wrong. But with
your patch I'd get "refs/heads/mybranch", which is also wrong.
I think you're right that all of the other cases would always use the
same refname on the remote.
> remote.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
We'd want some test coverage to make sure this doesn't regress. There
are already some tests covering this feature in t6300. And indeed, your
patch causes them to fail when checking a "simple" push case (but I
think I'd argue the current expected value there is wrong). That should
be expanded to cover the "upstream" case, too, once we figure out how to
get it right.
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index 593ce297ed..75e42b1e36 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ const char *remote_ref_for_branch(struct branch *branch, int for_push,
> *explicit = 1;
> return dst;
> }
> + else if (remote) {
> + if (explicit)
> + *explicit = 1;
> + return branch->refname;
> + }
Saying "*explicit = 1" here seems weird. Isn't the whole point that
these modes _aren't_ explicit?
It looks like our only caller will ignore our return value unless we say
"explicit", though. I have to wonder what the point of that flag is,
versus just returning NULL when we don't have anything to return.
-Peff
