On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 11:05:31PM +0100, Damien Robert wrote: > So it remains the problem of handling the 'upstream' case. > The ideal solution would be to not duplicate branch_get_push_1. Yeah, that would be nice (though at least if it's all contained in remote.c, we can live with some duplication). There's already some duplication in the way remote_ref_for_branch() applies remote refspecs. And I think all of this may be duplicated with git-push itself (which would also be nice to get rid of, but last time I looked into it was hard to refactor it to do so). > In most of the case, this function finds `dst` which is exactly the > push:remoteref we are looking for. > > Then branch_get_push_1 uses > ret = tracking_for_push_dest(remote, dst, err); > which simply calls > ret = apply_refspecs(&remote->fetch, dst); Right, there we already have the remote name, and are applying the fetch refspecs to know what our tracking branch would be. So in remote_ref_for_branch(), we'd just not apply those. > The only different case is > case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM: > return branch_get_upstream(branch, err); > which returns > branch->merge[0]->dst We also have PUSH_DEFAULT_NOTHING, for which obviously we'd return nothing (NULL or an empty string). Likewise for SIMPLE, we probably need to check that the upstream has a matching name (and return nothing if not). > So we could almost write an auxiliary function that returns push:remoteref > and use it both in remote_ref_for_branch and branch_get_push_1 (via a > further call to tracking_for_push_dest) except for the 'upstream' case > which is subtly different. Yes, that makes sense. > In the 'upstream' case, the auxiliary function would return > branch->merge_name[0]. So the question is: can > tracking_for_push_dest(branch->merge_name[0]) be different from > branch->merge[0]->dst? Those will both return tracking refs. I think you just want merge[0]->src for the upstream case. And yes, the two can be different. It's the same case as when the upstream branch has a different name than the current branch. > Another solution could be as follow: we already store `push` in > `branch->push_tracking_ref`. So the question is: can we always easily convert > something like refs/remotes/origin/branch_name to refs/heads/branch_name > (ie essentially reverse ètracking_for_push_dest`), or are there corner cases? This would basically be reverse-applying the fetch refspec. In theory it should be possible, but there are cases where somebody has overlapping refspecs. But at any rate, I think it's better to just get the pre-mapped values (i.e., avoid calling tracking_for_push_dest() in the first place). > Otherwise a simple but not elegant solution would be to copy paste the > code of branch_get_push_1 to remote_ref_for_branch, simply removing the > calls to `tracking_for_push_dest` and using remote->branch_name[0] rather > than remote->branch[0]->dst for the upstream case. Yeah, I think that's going to be the easiest. It would be nice to avoid repeating that switch(), but frankly I think the boilerplate you'll end up with trying to handle the two cases may be worse than just repeating it. It may be worth adding a comment to each function to mention the other, and that any changes need to match. -Peff
