On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:57 AM Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > "Tao Klerks via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> if (!remote_find_tracking(remote, &tracking->spec)) {
> >> - if (++tracking->matches == 1) {
> >> + switch (++tracking->matches) {
> >> + case 1:
> >> string_list_append(tracking->srcs, tracking->spec.src);
> >> tracking->remote = remote->name;
> >> - } else {
> >> + break;
> >> + case 2:
> >> + /* there are at least two remotes; backfill the first one */
> >> + string_list_append(&ftb->ambiguous_remotes, tracking->spec.src);
> >> + /* fall through */
> >> + default:
> >> + string_list_append(&ftb->ambiguous_remotes, remote->name);
> >> free(tracking->spec.src);
> >> string_list_clear(tracking->srcs, 0);
> >> + break;
> >
> > Just to sanity check this part,
> >
> > - During the first iteration, we append tracking->spec.src to
> > tracking->srcs, and set tracking->remote to remote->name;
> >
> > - In later iterations, we do not want to touch tracking->srcs, and
> > want to collect remote->name.
> >
> > And "backfill" assumes that tracking->spec.src at that point in the
> > second iteration is the same as what we got in remote->name in the
> > first round. If that were a correct assumption, then it is curious
> > that the first iteration uses tracking->spec.src and remote->name
> > separately for different purposes, which makes me want to double
> > check if the assumption is indeed correct.
> >
> > If it were tracking->remote (which was assigned the value of
> > remote->name during the first iteration) that is used to backfill
> > before we append remote->name in the second iteration, I wouldn't
> > find it "curious", but the use of tracking->spec.src there makes me
> > feel confused.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, I also found this unusual when I was
> reading v5.
If you never hear from me again, please know it's because I crawled
back under the rock I had crawled out from. This is clearly a bug from
a silly typo, and I've managed to look at the resulting output twice
without noticing the wrong thing was printed. I'm guessing the use of
the word "unusual" here is a polite euphemism for "you numskull, what
you wrote makes no sense!" :)
I did not think adding an automated test for advise() output made
sense, but I guess I have proved myself wrong.
