On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 2:45 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Fix this by checking negative refspecs inside of get_ref_states. For
> > each ref which matches a negative refspec, copy it into a "skipped" list
> > and remove it from the fetch map. This allows us to show the following
> > output instead:
> >
> > * remote jdk19
> > Fetch URL: git@xxxxxxxxxx:openjdk/jdk19.git
> > Push URL: git@xxxxxxxxxx:openjdk/jdk19.git
> > HEAD branch: master
> > Remote branches:
> > master tracked
> > pr/1 skipped
> > pr/2 skipped
> > pr/3 skipped
> > Local ref configured for 'git push':
> > master pushes to master (fast-forwardable)
> >
> > By showing the refs as skipped, it helps clarify that these references
> > won't actually be fetched. Alternatively, we could simply remove them
> > entirely.
>
> Very sensible.
>
> > @@ -367,6 +368,24 @@ static int get_ref_states(const struct ref *remote_refs, struct ref_states *stat
> > die(_("Could not get fetch map for refspec %s"),
> > states->remote->fetch.raw[i]);
> >
> > + /* handle negative refspecs first */
> > + for (tail = &fetch_map; *tail; ) {
> > + ref = *tail;
> > +
> > + if (omit_name_by_refspec(ref->name, &states->remote->fetch)) {
> > + string_list_append(&states->skipped, abbrev_branch(ref->name));
> > +
> > + /* Matched a negative refspec, so remove this ref from
> > + * consideration for being a new or tracked ref.
> > + */
> > + *tail = ref->next;
> > + free(ref->peer_ref);
> > + free(ref);
> > + } else {
> > + tail = &ref->next;
> > + }
> > + }
>
>
> This is somewhat curious. Do we really need to destroy the
> fetch_map like the above? I know by removing skipped items from the
> list, the existing loop (below) can stop having to worry about them,
> but the caller of get_ref_states() may later want to iterate over
> the full fetch_map for other reasons (even if the current one does
> not, a future version of the caller may have a reason to do so that
> we do not know right now yet).
>
Good point. I'll fix this. I think we can just move the
omit_name_by_refspec into the other loop.
> > +
> > for (ref = fetch_map; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> > if (!ref->peer_ref || !ref_exists(ref->peer_ref->name))
> > string_list_append(&states->new_refs, abbrev_branch(ref->name));
>
> IOW, is adding a new condition to this existing loop insufficient?
>
The tricky part here is that we don't have a simple check, and we're
currently iterating over all of the refspecs each time. But we have to
do that regardless so I think this makes sense. Will fix.
> for (ref = fetch_map; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> - if (!ref->peer_ref || !ref_exists(ref->peer_ref->name))
> + if (omit_name_by_refspec(ref->name, &states->remote->fetch))
> + string_list_append(&states->skipped, abbrev_branch(ref->name));
> + else if (!ref->peer_ref || !ref_exists(ref->peer_ref->name))
> string_list_append(&states->new_refs, abbrev_branch(ref->name));
> else
> string_list_append(&states->tracked, abbrev_branch(ref->name));
> }
>
>
> Thanks.
