git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:24:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200303222423.wfbjuuwp3263qesv@doriath> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtv358fkk.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

From Junio C Hamano, Tue 03 Mar 2020 at 10:21:31 (-0800) :
> Mental note: this function was moved down, the main part of the
> logic extracted to a new branch_get_push_remoteref() helper, which
> in addition got extended.

Exactly.

> That's a fairly expensive way to write
> 	if (remote->push.nr)
> 		return apply_refspecs(&remote->push, branch->refname);
> one-liner.

You anticipated the question I asked afterwards :)

> > +	case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM:
> > +		{
> > +			if (!branch || !branch->merge ||
> > +			    !branch->merge[0] || !branch->merge[0]->dst)
> > +			return NULL;
> > +
> > +			return branch->merge[0]->src;
> > +		}
> 
> This is strangely indented and somewhat unreadable.  Why isn't this
> more like:

Sorry I missed the indentation for the return NULL.
 
> 	case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM:
> 		if (branch && branch->merge && branch->merge[0] &&
> 		    branch->merge[0]->dst)
> 			return branch->merge[0]->src;
> 		break;
> 
> and have "return NULL" after the switch() statement before we leave
> the function?

We could, I agree this is more readable. If we return NULL after the
switch, we need to put the
> > +	BUG("unhandled push situation")
in a default clause a you say.

The reason I wrote the code as above is to be as close as possible to
`branch_get_push_1`. If we make the changes you suggest, I'll probably need
a preliminary patch to change `branch_get_push_1` accordingly.

> > +	case PUSH_DEFAULT_UNSPECIFIED:
> > +	case PUSH_DEFAULT_SIMPLE:
> > +		{
> > +			const char *up, *cur;
> > +
> > +			up = branch_get_upstream(branch, NULL);
> > +			if (!up)
> > +				return NULL;
> > +			cur = tracking_for_push_dest(remote, branch->refname, NULL);
> > +			if (!cur)
> > +				return NULL;
> > +			if (strcmp(cur, up))
> > +				return NULL;
> 
> This is probably not all that performance critical, so
> 			up = branch_get_upstream(branch, NULL);
> 			current = tracking_for_push_dest(remote, branch->refname, NULL);
> 			if (!up || !current || strcmp(current, up))
> 				return NULL;
> might be easier to follow.

I don't mind but likewise in this case we should probably change
branch_get_push_1 too.

> By the way, I have a bit higher-level question.  
> 
> All of the above logic that decides what should happen in "git push"
> MUST have existing code we already use to implement "git push", no?

Yes.

> Why do we need to reinvent it here, instead of reusing the existing
> code?  Is it because the interface into the functions that implement
> the existing logic is very different from what this function wants?

Mostly yes. The logic of git push is to massage the refspecs directly, for
instance:
	case PUSH_DEFAULT_MATCHING:
		refspec_append(&rs, ":");
	case PUSH_DEFAULT_CURRENT:
		...
		strbuf_addf(&refspec, "%s:%s", branch->refname, branch->refname);
	case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM:
		...
		strbuf_addf(&refspec, "%s:%s", branch->refname, branch->merge[0]->src);

And the error messages are also not the same, and to give a good error
message we need to parse the different cases.

It may be possible to refactorize all this, but not in an obvious way and
it would be a lot more work than this patch series.

-- 
Damien Robert
http://www.normalesup.org/~robert/pro

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-03 22:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-28 17:24 [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref Damien Robert
2020-02-28 18:23 ` Jeff King
2020-03-01 22:05   ` Damien Robert
2020-03-02 13:32     ` Jeff King
2020-03-03 16:12       ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Damien Robert
2020-03-03 16:12         ` [PATCH v2 1/2] remote: drop "explicit" parameter from remote_ref_for_branch() Damien Robert
2020-03-03 17:51           ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 21:11             ` Jeff King
2020-03-03 22:22               ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 16:12         ` [PATCH v2 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref) Damien Robert
2020-03-03 16:29           ` Damien Robert
2020-03-03 18:29             ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 18:21           ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 22:24             ` Damien Robert [this message]
2020-03-03 22:48               ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-12 16:45           ` [PATCH v3 1/1] " Damien Robert
2020-03-25 22:16             ` Damien Robert
2020-03-27 22:08               ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-28 22:25                 ` Damien Robert
2020-03-28 13:15             ` Jeff King
2020-03-28 13:31               ` Jeff King
2020-04-16 15:12                 ` Damien Robert
2020-04-06 16:04               ` Damien Robert
2020-04-06 21:46                 ` Jeff King
2020-04-06 17:56             ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] %(push) and %(push:remoteref) bug fixes Damien Robert
2020-04-06 17:56               ` [PATCH v6 1/2] remote.c: fix %(push) for triangular workflows Damien Robert
2020-04-06 17:56               ` [PATCH v6 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref) Damien Robert
2020-04-16 15:03             ` [PATCH v8 1/1] " Damien Robert
2020-04-16 15:21               ` Damien Robert
2020-09-03 22:01                 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-11 21:43                   ` Damien Robert
2020-09-14 22:21                     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-03 16:16       ` [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref Damien Robert
2020-03-02 13:48     ` Jeff King
2020-03-03 16:25       ` Damien Robert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200303222423.wfbjuuwp3263qesv@doriath \
    --to=damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref)' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).