Thread (57 messages) 57 messages, 3 authors, 2016-11-20

Re: [PATCH v7 07/17] ref-filter: make %(upstream:track) prints "[gone]" for invalid upstreams

flat view

From: Jacob Keller <hidden>
Date: 2016-11-08 23:38:13

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Karthik Nayak [off-list ref] wrote:
From: Karthik Nayak <redacted>

Borrowing from branch.c's implementation print "[gone]" whenever an
unknown upstream ref is encountered instead of just ignoring it.
This makes sense.
This makes sure that when branch.c is ported over to using ref-filter
APIs for printing, this feature is not lost.
Right.
Make changes to t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh and
Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt to reflect this change.
This will change behavior if people were expecting it to remain
silent, but I think this could be considered a bug.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Mentored-by: Christian Couder [off-list ref]
Mentored-by: Matthieu Moy [off-list ref]
Helped-by : Jacob Keller [off-list ref]
Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <redacted>
---
 Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt | 3 ++-
 ref-filter.c                       | 4 +++-
 t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh            | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
index 92184c4..fd365eb 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
@@ -119,7 +119,8 @@ upstream::
        "[ahead N, behind M]" and `:trackshort` to show the terse
        version: ">" (ahead), "<" (behind), "<>" (ahead and behind),
        or "=" (in sync).  Has no effect if the ref does not have
-       tracking information associated with it.
+       tracking information associated with it. `:track` also prints
+       "[gone]" whenever unknown upstream ref is encountered.
I think this is poorly worded. If I understand, "has no effect if the
ref does not have tracking information" so in that case we still print
nothing, right? but otherwise we print [gone] only when the upstream
ref no longer actually exists locally? I wonder if there is a better
wording for this? I don't have one. Any suggestions to avoid confusing
these two cases?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 push::
        The name of a local ref which represents the `@{push}` location
diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
index b8b8a95..6d51b80 100644
--- a/ref-filter.c
+++ b/ref-filter.c
@@ -1049,8 +1049,10 @@ static void fill_remote_ref_details(struct used_atom *atom, const char *refname,
                *s = shorten_unambiguous_ref(refname, warn_ambiguous_refs);
        else if (atom->u.remote_ref == RR_TRACK) {
                if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours,
-                                      &num_theirs, NULL))
+                                      &num_theirs, NULL)) {
+                       *s = "[gone]";
                        return;
+               }

                if (!num_ours && !num_theirs)
                        *s = "";
diff --git a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
index 2be0a3f..a92b36f 100755
--- a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
+++ b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ test_expect_success 'Check that :track[short] cannot be used with other atoms' '

 test_expect_success 'Check that :track[short] works when upstream is invalid' '
        cat >expected <<-\EOF &&
-
+       [gone]

        EOF
        test_when_finished "git config branch.master.merge refs/heads/master" &&
--
2.10.2
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help