Hi Bence

On 13/10/2024 21:52, Bence Ferdinandy wrote:

On Sun Oct 13, 2024 at 16:03, Phillip Wood [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/refs/reftable-backend.c b/refs/reftable-backend.c
index 3c96fbf66f..ebf8e57fbc 100644
--- a/refs/reftable-backend.c
+++ b/refs/reftable-backend.c

@@ -1206,10 +1206,13 @@ static int reftable_be_transaction_prepare(struct ref_store *ref_store,
   				goto done;
   			}
   		} else if ((u->flags & REF_HAVE_OLD) && !oideq(&current_oid, &u->old_oid)) {
-			if (is_null_oid(&u->old_oid))
+			ret = TRANSACTION_NAME_CONFLICT;
+			if (is_null_oid(&u->old_oid)) {
   				strbuf_addf(err, _("cannot lock ref '%s': "
   						   "reference already exists"),
   					    ref_update_original_update_refname(u));
+				ret = TRANSACTION_CREATE_EXISTS;
+			}
   			else if (is_null_oid(&current_oid))
   				strbuf_addf(err, _("cannot lock ref '%s': "
   						   "reference is missing but expected %s"),

@@ -1221,7 +1224,6 @@ static int reftable_be_transaction_prepare(struct ref_store *ref_store,
   					    ref_update_original_update_refname(u),
   					    oid_to_hex(&current_oid),
   					    oid_to_hex(&u->old_oid));
-			ret = -1;
   			goto done;
   		}
   

This originally returned -1, and it still returns that if it doesn't return -2,
I just used the named variable instead of the integer itself. It might still be
that this should be -3 GENERIC_ERROR, but if that is the case I think fixing
that should be a different patch? I didn't check if changing that -1 to
something else breaks anything or not.

Oh sorry I was confused and thought TRANSACTION_GENERIC_ERROR was -1.

Best Wishes

Phillip

Best,
Bence