On 20/11/22 23:10, Victoria Dye wrote:
> It does allude the _expected_ result, though ("[-C] uses the same underlying
> machinery as the --move (-m) option except the reflog and configuration is
> copied instead of being moved").
>
>>
>> The design decisions in branch.c and config.c have brought us to this
>> unexpected result, which just need to be addressed. IMHO
>
> It's helpful to reviewers and future readers to include relevant context in
> a commit message; a commit doesn't need to be responsible for a bug to help
> someone understand what you're trying to do and why. In this case, I needed
> to search through the commit history myself to gather that information (that
> is, how you decided clearing the destination first was the "correct"
> approach rather than, say, preserving the destination branch's config and
> not copying the source's), so I would consider the explanation in the
> current commit message incomplete.
>
> In general, it's often not enough to "just fix a bug" without elaborating on
> why something *is* a bug. This isn't an obvious thing like a 'BUG()' or
> segfault, so context like 52d59cc6452 is needed to convey the nuance of the
> issue.
OK. Clearly the message it's wrong.
>>>> + test_when_finished git branch -D moved &&
>>>> + git branch -t main-tracked main &&
>>>> + git branch non-tracked &&
>>>> + git branch -M main-tracked moved &&
>>>> + git branch --unset-upstream moved &&
>>>> + git branch -M non-tracked moved &&
>>>> + test_must_fail git branch --unset-upstream moved
>>>
>>> If I'm reading this correctly, the test doesn't actually demonstrate that
>>> 'git branch -M' cleans up the tracking info, since 'moved' never has any
>>> tracking info immediately before 'git branch -M'. The test could also be
>>> more precise by verifying the upstream name matches. What about something
>>> like this?
>>>
>>> test_when_finished git branch -D moved &&
>>> git branch -t main-tracked main &&
>>> git branch non-tracked &&
>>>
>>> # `moved` doesn't exist, so it starts with no tracking info
>>> echo main >expect &&
>>> git branch -M main-tracked moved &&
>>> git rev-parse --abbrev-ref moved@{upstream} >actual &&
>>> test_cmp expect actual &&
>>>
>>> # At this point, `moved` is tracking `main`
>>> git branch -M non-tracked moved &&
>>> test_must_fail git rev-parse --abbrev-ref moved@{upstream}
>>
>> You are right, good eye. Thanks. That first '--unset-upstream'
>> eliminates the possible undesired inherited tracking info. Removing it
>> is needed to make the test meaningful. 'rev-parse' is a good change,
>> but as the test is not testing that '-M' works as expected but doesn't
>> work in the unexpected way the message describes, I don't think we need
>> it here, imho.
>
> But by always having the destination branch have no tracking info, this test
> doesn't verify that the unexpected behavior (that is, "mixing" the source
> and destination config) has been fixed. You still need a case where the
> destination config is non-empty and the source is empty (or some other
> non-empty value) to reproduce the issue.
OK, understood, that needs a test.
> As for the 'rev-parse' vs. '--unset-upstream': making the test more precise
> here doesn't increase its scope *and* makes the overall test suite more
> effective at detecting regressions. And, a read-only check like 'rev-parse'
> is more readable for other developers (especially if they need to debug the
> test in the future), rather than needing to understand that
OK, that makes sense.
> '--unset-upstream' is doing two things: throwing an error depending on the
> presence of an upstream *and* removing the upstream from the target branch).
>
> In other words, it helps to separate your assertions from your setup steps.
> If you still need to '--unset-upstream' for the rest of the test, you can do
> the 'rev-parse' then '--unset-upstream' as two separate steps.
>
>> --- >8 ---
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> t/t3200-branch.sh | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh
>> index c3b3d11c28..ba959a82de 100755
>> --- a/t/t3200-branch.sh
>> +++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh
>> @@ -218,17 +218,16 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -M should leave orphaned HEAD alone' '
>> )
>> '
>>
>> -test_expect_success 'git branch -M inherites clean tracking setup' '
>> +test_expect_success 'git branch -M inherits clean tracking setup' '
>> test_when_finished git branch -D moved &&
>> git branch -t main-tracked main &&
>> git branch non-tracked &&
>> - git branch -M main-tracked moved &&
>> git branch --unset-upstream moved &&
>> git branch -M non-tracked moved &&
>> test_must_fail git branch --unset-upstream moved
>
> This change makes the test less comprehensive (by removing the
> "tracked-overwrites-untracked" case) and does not solve the issue of 'moved'
> always having no tracking info before the 'git branch -M' (therefore not
> properly reproducing the error case fixed in this patch).
Sorry, I sent the wrong patch. Removing the line 'git branch
--unset-upstream moved' is what makes the test meaningful.
>> '
>>
>> -test_expect_success 'git branch -C inherites clean tracking setup' '
>> +test_expect_success 'git branch -C inherits clean tracking setup' '
>> test_when_finished git branch -D copiable copied &&
>> git branch -t copiable main &&
>> git branch -C copiable copied &&
>>
>
---
This needs more work and consensus. I think we can reject this patch,
2/2, and let the other, 1/2, settle.
I'll try to address this again considering what we've discussed here,
improving the message with context as you suggested and trying to
use more a sense of completion than a fix or bug. Maybe also covering
other options in branch that might be affected for this configuration
thing.
Thank you.
