[PATCH v5] branch: introduce --show-current display option

[PATCH v5] branch: introduce --show-current display option

[Daniels Umanovskis]

When called with --show-current, git branch will print the current
branch name and terminate. Only the actual name gets printed,
without refs/heads. In detached HEAD state, nothing is output.

Intended both for scripting and interactive/informative use.
Unlike git branch --list, no filtering is needed to just get the
branch name.

Signed-off-by: Daniels Umanovskis <daniels@umanovskis.se>
---

Submitting v5 now that a week has passed since latest maintainer
comments.

This is basically v4 but with small fixes to the test, as proposed
by Junio on pu, and additionally replacing a subshell
with { .. } since Dscho and Eric discovered the negative
performance effects of subshell invocations.

 Documentation/git-branch.txt |  6 ++++-
 builtin/branch.c             | 25 ++++++++++++++++++--
 t/t3203-branch-output.sh     | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
index bf5316ffa9..0babb9b1be 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-branch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
 --------
 [verse]
 'git branch' [--color[=<when>] | --no-color] [-r | -a]
-	[--list] [-v [--abbrev=<length> | --no-abbrev]]
+	[--list] [--show-current] [-v [--abbrev=<length> | --no-abbrev]]
 	[--column[=<options>] | --no-column] [--sort=<key>]
 	[(--merged | --no-merged) [<commit>]]
 	[--contains [<commit]] [--no-contains [<commit>]]
@@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ This option is only applicable in non-verbose mode.
 	branch --list 'maint-*'`, list only the branches that match
 	the pattern(s).
 
+--show-current::
+	Print the name of the current branch. In detached HEAD state,
+	nothing is printed.
+
 -v::
 -vv::
 --verbose::
diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
index c396c41533..46f91dc06d 100644
--- a/builtin/branch.c
+++ b/builtin/branch.c
@@ -443,6 +443,21 @@ static void print_ref_list(struct ref_filter *filter, struct ref_sorting *sortin
 	free(to_free);
 }
 
+static void print_current_branch_name(void)
+{
+	int flags;
+	const char *refname = resolve_ref_unsafe("HEAD", 0, NULL, &flags);
+	const char *shortname;
+	if (!refname)
+		die(_("could not resolve HEAD"));
+	else if (!(flags & REF_ISSYMREF))
+		return;
+	else if (skip_prefix(refname, "refs/heads/", &shortname))
+		puts(shortname);
+	else
+		die(_("HEAD (%s) points outside of refs/heads/"), refname);
+}
+
 static void reject_rebase_or_bisect_branch(const char *target)
 {
 	struct worktree **worktrees = get_worktrees(0);
@@ -581,6 +596,7 @@ static int edit_branch_description(const char *branch_name)
 int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 {
 	int delete = 0, rename = 0, copy = 0, force = 0, list = 0;
+	int show_current = 0;
 	int reflog = 0, edit_description = 0;
 	int quiet = 0, unset_upstream = 0;
 	const char *new_upstream = NULL;
@@ -620,6 +636,7 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		OPT_BIT('c', "copy", &copy, N_("copy a branch and its reflog"), 1),
 		OPT_BIT('C', NULL, &copy, N_("copy a branch, even if target exists"), 2),
 		OPT_BOOL('l', "list", &list, N_("list branch names")),
+		OPT_BOOL(0, "show-current", &show_current, N_("show current branch name")),
 		OPT_BOOL(0, "create-reflog", &reflog, N_("create the branch's reflog")),
 		OPT_BOOL(0, "edit-description", &edit_description,
 			 N_("edit the description for the branch")),
@@ -662,14 +679,15 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, builtin_branch_usage,
 			     0);
 
-	if (!delete && !rename && !copy && !edit_description && !new_upstream && !unset_upstream && argc == 0)
+	if (!delete && !rename && !copy && !edit_description && !new_upstream &&
+	    !show_current && !unset_upstream && argc == 0)
 		list = 1;
 
 	if (filter.with_commit || filter.merge != REF_FILTER_MERGED_NONE || filter.points_at.nr ||
 	    filter.no_commit)
 		list = 1;
 
-	if (!!delete + !!rename + !!copy + !!new_upstream +
+	if (!!delete + !!rename + !!copy + !!new_upstream + !!show_current +
 	    list + unset_upstream > 1)
 		usage_with_options(builtin_branch_usage, options);
 
@@ -697,6 +715,9 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		if (!argc)
 			die(_("branch name required"));
 		return delete_branches(argc, argv, delete > 1, filter.kind, quiet);
+	} else if (show_current) {
+		print_current_branch_name();
+		return 0;
 	} else if (list) {
 		/*  git branch --local also shows HEAD when it is detached */
 		if ((filter.kind & FILTER_REFS_BRANCHES) && filter.detached)
diff --git a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
index ee6787614c..be55148930 100755
--- a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
+++ b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
@@ -100,6 +100,50 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -v pattern does not show branch summaries' '
 	test_must_fail git branch -v branch*
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'git branch `--show-current` shows current branch' '
+	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	branch-two
+	EOF
+	git checkout branch-two &&
+	git branch --show-current >actual &&
+	test_cmp expect actual
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'git branch `--show-current` is silent when detached HEAD' '
+	git checkout HEAD^0 &&
+	git branch --show-current >actual &&
+	test_must_be_empty actual
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'git branch `--show-current` works properly when tag exists' '
+	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	branch-and-tag-name
+	EOF
+	test_when_finished "
+		git checkout branch-one
+		git branch -D branch-and-tag-name
+	" &&
+	git checkout -b branch-and-tag-name &&
+	test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name" &&
+	git tag branch-and-tag-name &&
+	git branch --show-current >actual &&
+	test_cmp expect actual
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'git branch `--show-current` works properly with worktrees' '
+	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
+	branch-one
+	branch-two
+	EOF
+	git checkout branch-one &&
+	git worktree add worktree branch-two &&
+	{
+		git branch --show-current &&
+		git -C worktree branch --show-current
+	} >actual &&
+	test_cmp expect actual
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'git branch shows detached HEAD properly' '
 	cat >expect <<EOF &&
 * (HEAD detached at $(git rev-parse --short HEAD^0))
-- 
2.19.1.329.gad8739a7f.dirty

Re: [PATCH v5] branch: introduce --show-current display option

[Eric Sunshine]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 3:04 PM Daniels Umanovskis
<daniels@umanovskis.se> wrote:
> When called with --show-current, git branch will print the current
> branch name and terminate. Only the actual name gets printed,
> without refs/heads. In detached HEAD state, nothing is output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniels Umanovskis <daniels@umanovskis.se>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
> @@ -100,6 +100,50 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -v pattern does not show branch summaries' '
> +test_expect_success 'git branch `--show-current` works properly when tag exists' '
> +       cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> +       branch-and-tag-name
> +       EOF
> +       test_when_finished "
> +               git checkout branch-one
> +               git branch -D branch-and-tag-name
> +       " &&
> +       git checkout -b branch-and-tag-name &&
> +       test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name" &&
> +       git tag branch-and-tag-name &&

If git-tag crashes before actually creating the new tag, then "git tag
-d", passed to test_when_finished(), will error out too, which is
probably undesirable since "cleanup code" isn't expected to error out.
You could fix it this way:

    test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name || :" &&
    git tag branch-and-tag-name &&

or, even better, just swap the two lines:

    git tag branch-and-tag-name &&
    test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name" &&

However, do you even need to clean up the tag? Are there tests
following this one which expect a certain set of tags and fail if this
new one is present? If not, a simpler approach might be just to leave
the tag alone (and the branch too if that doesn't need to be cleaned
up).

> +       git branch --show-current >actual &&
> +       test_cmp expect actual
> +'

Re: [PATCH v5] branch: introduce --show-current display option

[Junio C Hamano]

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

>> +       test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name" &&
>> +       git tag branch-and-tag-name &&
>
> If git-tag crashes before actually creating the new tag, then "git tag
> -d", passed to test_when_finished(), will error out too, which is
> probably undesirable since "cleanup code" isn't expected to error out.

Ah, I somehow thought that clean-up actions set up via when_finished
are allowed to fail without affecting the outcome, but apparently I
was mistaken.

This however can be argued both ways---if you create a tag first and
try to set up the clean-up action, during which you may get in
trouble and end up leaving the tag behind.  So rather than swapping
the two lines, explicitly preparing for the case the clean-up action
fails, i.e. the first alternative below, would be a good fix.

Also it is a good question if the tag need to be even cleaned up.

> You could fix it this way:
>
>     test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name || :" &&
>     git tag branch-and-tag-name &&
>
> or, even better, just swap the two lines:
>
>     git tag branch-and-tag-name &&
>     test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name" &&

> However, do you even need to clean up the tag? Are there tests
> following this one which expect a certain set of tags and fail if this
> new one is present? If not, a simpler approach might be just to leave
> the tag alone (and the branch too if that doesn't need to be cleaned
> up).
>
>> +       git branch --show-current >actual &&
>> +       test_cmp expect actual
>> +'

A bigger question we may want to ask ourselves is if we want to
detect failures from these clean-up actions in the first place.
There are many hits from "git grep 'when_finished .*|| :' t/", which
may be a sign that the when_finished mechanism was misdesigned and
we should simply ignore the exit status from the clean-up actions
instead.

I haven't gone through the list of when_finished clean-up actions
that do not end with "|| :"; I suspect some of them are simply being
sloppy and would want to have "|| :", but what I want to find out
out of such an audit is if there is a legitimate case where it helps
to catch failures in the clean-up actions.  If there is none, then
...

Re: [PATCH v5] branch: introduce --show-current display option

[Junio C Hamano]

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

>> +       test_when_finished "
>> +               git checkout branch-one
>> +               git branch -D branch-and-tag-name
>> +       " &&
>> +       git checkout -b branch-and-tag-name &&
>> +       test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name" &&
>> +       git tag branch-and-tag-name &&

We've discussed about the exit status from clean-up code already,
but another thing worth noticing is that it probably is easier to
see what is going on if we use a single when-finished to clear both
branch and the tag with the same name.  Something like

	test_when_finished "
		git checkout branch-one
		git branch -D branch-and-tag-name
		git tag -d branch-and-tag-name
		:
	" &&

upfront before doing anything else.  "checkout" may break if the
test that follows when-finished accidentally removes branch-one
and that would cascade to a failure to remove branch-and-tag-name
branch (because we fail to move away from it), but because there is
no && in between, we'd clean as much as we could in such a case,
which may or may not be a good thing.  And then we hide the exit
code by having a ":" at the end.

Re: [PATCH v5] branch: introduce --show-current display option

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:52:24AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> 
> >> +       test_when_finished "git tag -d branch-and-tag-name" &&
> >> +       git tag branch-and-tag-name &&
> >
> > If git-tag crashes before actually creating the new tag, then "git tag
> > -d", passed to test_when_finished(), will error out too, which is
> > probably undesirable since "cleanup code" isn't expected to error out.
> 
> Ah, I somehow thought that clean-up actions set up via when_finished
> are allowed to fail without affecting the outcome, but apparently I
> was mistaken.

If a when_finished block fails, we consider that a test failure. But if
we failed to create the tag, the test is failing anyway. Do we actually
care at that point?

We would still want to make sure we run the rest of the cleanup, but
looking at the definition of test_when_finished(), I think we do.

> I haven't gone through the list of when_finished clean-up actions
> that do not end with "|| :"; I suspect some of them are simply being
> sloppy and would want to have "|| :", but what I want to find out
> out of such an audit is if there is a legitimate case where it helps
> to catch failures in the clean-up actions.  If there is none, then
> ...

I think in the success case it is legitimately helpful. If that "tag -d"
failed above (after the tag creation and the rest of the test
succeeded), it would certainly be unexpected and we would want to know
that it happened. So I think "|| :" in this case is not just
unnecessary, but actively bad.

-Peff

[PATCH] branch: make --show-current use already resolved HEAD

[Rafael Ascensão]

print_current_branch_name() tries to resolve HEAD and die() when it
doesn't resolve it successfully. But the conditions being tested are
always unreachable because early in branch:cmd_branch() the same logic
is performed.

Eliminate the duplicate and unreachable code, and update the current
logic to the more reliable check for the detached head.

Signed-off-by: Rafael Ascensão <rafa.almas@gmail.com>
---

This patch is meant to be either applied or squashed on top of the
current series.

I am basing the claims of it being more reliable of what Junio suggested
on a previous iteration of this series:
https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqq4ldtgehs.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/

But the main goal of this patch is to just bring some attention to this,
as I mentioned it in a previous thread but it got lost. After asking on
#git-devel, the suggestion was to send it as an incremental patch. So
here it is. :)

I still think the mention about scripting should be removed from the
original commit message, leaving it open to being taught other tricks
like --verbose that aren't necessarily script-friendly.

Cheers

 builtin/branch.c | 23 +++++------------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
index 46f91dc06d..1c51d0a8ca 100644
--- a/builtin/branch.c
+++ b/builtin/branch.c
@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ static const char * const builtin_branch_usage[] = {
 
 static const char *head;
 static struct object_id head_oid;
+static int head_flags = 0;
 
 static int branch_use_color = -1;
 static char branch_colors[][COLOR_MAXLEN] = {
@@ -443,21 +444,6 @@ static void print_ref_list(struct ref_filter *filter, struct ref_sorting *sortin
 	free(to_free);
 }
 
-static void print_current_branch_name(void)
-{
-	int flags;
-	const char *refname = resolve_ref_unsafe("HEAD", 0, NULL, &flags);
-	const char *shortname;
-	if (!refname)
-		die(_("could not resolve HEAD"));
-	else if (!(flags & REF_ISSYMREF))
-		return;
-	else if (skip_prefix(refname, "refs/heads/", &shortname))
-		puts(shortname);
-	else
-		die(_("HEAD (%s) points outside of refs/heads/"), refname);
-}
-
 static void reject_rebase_or_bisect_branch(const char *target)
 {
 	struct worktree **worktrees = get_worktrees(0);
@@ -668,10 +654,10 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 
 	track = git_branch_track;
 
-	head = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, &head_oid, NULL);
+	head = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, &head_oid, &head_flags);
 	if (!head)
 		die(_("Failed to resolve HEAD as a valid ref."));
-	if (!strcmp(head, "HEAD"))
+	if (!(head_flags & REF_ISSYMREF))
 		filter.detached = 1;
 	else if (!skip_prefix(head, "refs/heads/", &head))
 		die(_("HEAD not found below refs/heads!"));
@@ -716,7 +702,8 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 			die(_("branch name required"));
 		return delete_branches(argc, argv, delete > 1, filter.kind, quiet);
 	} else if (show_current) {
-		print_current_branch_name();
+		if (!filter.detached)
+			puts(head);
 		return 0;
 	} else if (list) {
 		/*  git branch --local also shows HEAD when it is detached */
-- 
2.19.1

Re: [PATCH] branch: make --show-current use already resolved HEAD

[Junio C Hamano]

Rafael Ascensão <rafa.almas@gmail.com> writes:

> print_current_branch_name() tries to resolve HEAD and die() when it
> doesn't resolve it successfully. But the conditions being tested are
> always unreachable because early in branch:cmd_branch() the same logic
> is performed.
>
> Eliminate the duplicate and unreachable code, and update the current
> logic to the more reliable check for the detached head.

Nice.

> I still think the mention about scripting should be removed from the
> original commit message, leaving it open to being taught other tricks
> like --verbose that aren't necessarily script-friendly.

I'd prefer to see scriptors avoid using "git branch", too.

Unlike end-user facing documentation where we promise "we do X and
will continue to do so because of Y" to the readers, the log message
is primarily for recording the original motivation of the change, so
that we can later learn "we did X back then because we thought Y".
When we want to revise X, we revisit if the reason Y is still valid.

So in that sense, the door to "break" the scriptability is still
open.

> But the main goal of this patch is to just bring some attention to this,
> as I mentioned it in a previous thread but it got lost.

This idea of yours seems to lead to a better implementation, and
indeed "got lost" is a good way to describe what happened---I do not
recall seeing it, for example.  Thanks for bringing it back.

> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
> index 46f91dc06d..1c51d0a8ca 100644
> --- a/builtin/branch.c
> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ static const char * const builtin_branch_usage[] = {
>  
>  static const char *head;
>  static struct object_id head_oid;
> +static int head_flags = 0;

You've eliminated the "now unnecessary" helper and do everything
inside cmd_branch(), so perhaps this can be made function local, no?

> @@ -668,10 +654,10 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  
>  	track = git_branch_track;
>  
> -	head = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, &head_oid, NULL);
> +	head = resolve_refdup("HEAD", 0, &head_oid, &head_flags);
>  	if (!head)
>  		die(_("Failed to resolve HEAD as a valid ref."));
> -	if (!strcmp(head, "HEAD"))
> +	if (!(head_flags & REF_ISSYMREF))
>  		filter.detached = 1;

Nice to see we can reuse the resolve_refdup() we already have.

>  	else if (!skip_prefix(head, "refs/heads/", &head))
>  		die(_("HEAD not found below refs/heads!"));
> @@ -716,7 +702,8 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  			die(_("branch name required"));
>  		return delete_branches(argc, argv, delete > 1, filter.kind, quiet);
>  	} else if (show_current) {
> -		print_current_branch_name();
> +		if (!filter.detached)
> +			puts(head);

Ah, I wondered why we do not have to skip-prefix, but it is already
done for us when we validated that an attached HEAD points at a
local branch.  Good.

>  		return 0;
>  	} else if (list) {
>  		/*  git branch --local also shows HEAD when it is detached */

Re: [PATCH] branch: make --show-current use already resolved HEAD

[Rafael Ascensão]

I did something that resulted in the mailing list not being cc'd.
Apologies to Junio and Daniels for the double send. :(

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:11:02AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I'd prefer to see scriptors avoid using "git branch", too.
> 
> Unlike end-user facing documentation where we promise "we do X and
> will continue to do so because of Y" to the readers, the log message
> is primarily for recording the original motivation of the change, so
> that we can later learn "we did X back then because we thought Y".
> When we want to revise X, we revisit if the reason Y is still valid.
> 
> So in that sense, the door to "break" the scriptability is still
> open.
> 

Over at #git, commit messages are sometimes consulted to disambiguate or
clarify certain details. Often the documentation is correct but people
dispute over interpretations.

If someone came asking if `git branch` is parsable, I would advise
against and direct them to the plumbing or format alternative. But if
someone came over with a link to this commit asking the same question,
I suspect the answer would be: it's probably safe to parse the output of
this specific option because the commit says so. Thanks for clarifying
this is wrong.

> >  
> >  static const char *head;
> >  static struct object_id head_oid;
> > +static int head_flags = 0;
> 
> You've eliminated the "now unnecessary" helper and do everything
> inside cmd_branch(), so perhaps this can be made function local, no?
> 

I was not sure if these 3 lines were global intentionally or if it was
just an artifact from the past. Since it looks like the latter, I'll
make them local.

--
Rafael Ascensão