Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] t, doc: update tests, reference for "--force-if-includes"
good.
> * t/t5533-push-cas.sh:
> Updates test cases for "compare-and-swap" when used along with
> "--force-if-includes" helps mitigate overwrites when remote
> ref are updated in the background.
>
> * Documentation:
> Adds reference for the new option, configuration setting
> ("push.useForceIfIncludes") and advise messages.
s/Updates/Update/; s/Adds/Add/;
> +push.useForceIfIncludes::
> + If set to "true", it is equivalent to specifying "--force-if-includes"
> + as an argument to linkgit:git-push[1]. Adding "--no-force-if-includes"
s/as an argument to/on the command line of/ would be better.
Some readers differenciate arguments and options and we are
discussing an option, not an argument.
> +Alternatively, specifying "--force-if-includes" an an ancillary option along
> +with "--force-with-lease[=<refname>]" (i.e., without saying what exact commit
> +the ref on the remote side must be pointing at, or which refs on the remote
> +side are being protected) at the time of "push" will verify if updates from the
> +remote-tracking refs that may have been implicitly updated in the background
> +are integrated locally before allowing a forced update.
OK. A user who wants to know more can refer to --force-if-includes
from here pretty easily.
> @@ -341,6 +348,19 @@ one branch, use a `+` in front of the refspec to push (e.g `git push
> origin +master` to force a push to the `master` branch). See the
> `<refspec>...` section above for details.
>
> +--[no-]force-if-includes::
> + Force an update only if the tip of the remote-tracking ref
> + has been integrated locally.
> ++
> +This option verifies if the tip of the remote-tracking ref on which
> +a local branch has based on (for a rewrite), is reachable from at
> +least one of the "reflog" entries of the local branch about to be
> +updated by force on the remote.
The latter half of this sentence is quite a mouthful, and after
reading it three times, it is not quite clear.
> +The check ensures that any updates
> +from the remote have been incorporated locally by rejecting a push
> +if that is not the case.
OK.
> ++
> +Specifying "--no-force-if-includes" disables this behavior.
Do we want to add:
It is a no-op unless "--force-with-lease[=<refname>]" without exact
object name is used at the same time.
here or somewhere nearby?
> +test_expect_success 'background updates of REMOTE can be mitigated with "--force-if-includes"' '
> + rm -rf src dst &&
> + git init --bare src.bare &&
> + test_when_finished "rm -rf src.bare" &&
> + git clone --no-local src.bare dst &&
> + test_when_finished "rm -rf dst" &&
> + (
> + cd dst &&
> + test_commit G &&
> + git push origin master:master
> + ) &&
> + git clone --no-local src.bare dst2 &&
> + test_when_finished "rm -rf dst2" &&
> + (
> + cd dst2 &&
> + test_commit H &&
> + git push
> + ) &&
> + (
> + cd dst &&
> + test_commit I &&
> + git fetch origin &&
> + test_must_fail git push --force-with-lease --force-if-includes origin
I briefly wondered if it makes sense to also check if
--force-with-lease alone (or with --no-force-if-includes)
successfully pushes in this case, but I think we are OK without such
a test. After all, we won't test "--force" alone, either, as we
expect that to work (and should be tested elsewhere).
> + )
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'background updates of REMOTE can be mitigated with "push.useForceIfIncludes"' '
> + rm -rf src dst &&
> + git init --bare src.bare &&
> + test_when_finished "rm -rf src.bare" &&
> + git clone --no-local src.bare dst &&
> + test_when_finished "rm -rf dst" &&
> + (
> + cd dst &&
> + test_commit G &&
> + git push origin master:master
> + ) &&
> + git clone --no-local src.bare dst2 &&
> + test_when_finished "rm -rf dst2" &&
> + (
> + cd dst2 &&
> + test_commit H &&
> + git push
> + ) &&
> + (
> + cd dst &&
> + test_commit I &&
> + git fetch origin &&
> + git config --local push.useForceIfIncludes "true" &&
> + test_must_fail git push --force-if-includes origin
I am not sure what is tested here. I thought with or without the
configuration variable, the feature is a no-op unless a lazy
force-with-lease is in use?
Perhaps you meant to test
test_must_fail git push --force-with-lease origin
instead?
> + )
> +'
> +
> test_done
Thanks.
