Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2018-01-04

Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] stat_tracking_info: return +1 when branches not equal

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2018-01-04 21:41:49

Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] writes:
-		if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours,
-				       &num_theirs, NULL)) {
+		if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours, &num_theirs,
+				       NULL, AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL) < 0) {
...
-		if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours,
-				       &num_theirs, NULL))
+		if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours, &num_theirs,
+				       NULL, AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL) < 0)
Mental note: any code that reacted to stat_tracking_info() returning
non-zero was reacting to "no useful info in num_{ours,theirs}".
They now have to compare the returned value with "< 0" for the same
purpose.
quoted hunk
...
  * Returns -1 if num_ours and num_theirs could not be filled in (e.g., no
- * upstream defined, or ref does not exist), 0 otherwise.
+ * upstream defined, or ref does not exist).  Returns 0 if the commits are
+ * identical.  Returns 1 if commits are different.
  */
 int stat_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, int *num_ours, int *num_theirs,
-		       const char **upstream_name)
+		       const char **upstream_name, enum ahead_behind_flags abf)
 {
 	struct object_id oid;
 	struct commit *ours, *theirs;
@@ -2019,6 +2026,8 @@ int stat_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, int *num_ours, int *num_theirs,
 		*num_theirs = *num_ours = 0;
 		return 0;
 	}
+	if (abf == AHEAD_BEHIND_QUICK)
+		return 1;
...
 	argv_array_clear(&argv);
-	return 0;
+	return 1;
 }
When a caller gets +1 from the function, it is not safe to peek into
*num_{ours,theirs} if it passed _QUICK.
quoted hunk
@@ -2064,7 +2073,8 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb)
-	if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &ours, &theirs, &full_base) < 0) {
+	if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &ours, &theirs, &full_base,
+			       AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL) < 0) {
Sane conversion to the new return value convention.
quoted hunk
diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
index 94e5eba..8f7fdc6 100644
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c
@@ -1791,7 +1791,8 @@ static void wt_shortstatus_print_tracking(struct wt_status *s)
 
 	color_fprintf(s->fp, branch_color_local, "%s", branch_name);
 
-	if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours, &num_theirs, &base) < 0) {
+	if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours, &num_theirs, &base,
+			       AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL) < 0) {
Ditto.
quoted hunk
@@ -1928,7 +1929,8 @@ static void wt_porcelain_v2_print_tracking(struct wt_status *s)
 		/* Lookup stats on the upstream tracking branch, if set. */
 		branch = branch_get(branch_name);
 		base = NULL;
-		ab_info = (stat_tracking_info(branch, &nr_ahead, &nr_behind, &base) == 0);
+		ab_info = (stat_tracking_info(branch, &nr_ahead, &nr_behind,
+					      &base, AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL) >= 0);
If a later step plans to (conditionally) allow _QUICK to be passed
here, this conversion is questionable, because ab_info being true
no longer is a sign that nr_{ahead,behind} are valid.

I suspect that moving the "s/ab_info/sti/" bits around here from
step [2/5] to this commit may make the result after this patch more
consistent, but it is not a big deal either way.
 		if (base) {
 			base = shorten_unambiguous_ref(base, 0);
 			fprintf(s->fp, "# branch.upstream %s%c", base, eol);
  
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help