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: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] %(push) and %(push:remoteref) bug fixes
Date: Mon,  6 Apr 2020 19:56:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200406175648.25737-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200312164558.2388589-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>

This fix several bugs in for-each-ref for %(push) and %(push:remoteref), as
explained in the commit messages.

Note that there are still several bugs:
- the memory leak mentioned by Jeff in
  https://public-inbox.org/git/20200328131553.GA643242@coredump.intra.peff.net/

- in my patch, to detect if the workflow is triangular, I use:

static int is_workflow_triangular(struct branch *branch)
{
	struct remote *fetch_remote = remote_get(remote_for_branch(branch, NULL));
	struct remote *push_remote = remote_get(pushremote_for_branch(branch, NULL));
	return (fetch_remote && push_remote && fetch_remote != push_remote);
}

But remote_get will always fallback to 'origin'. So this means that if we
set up a pushRemote="foobar" and no 'remote', the workflow is detected as
triangular.

Whereas in `git push`, this workflow will not be detected as triangular.

=> So I can check that by looking at *explicit, but I actually have a
question about what constitutes a triangular workflow, hence the RFC.

Furthermore, the upstream (and simple in non triangular workflow) case of
%(push) and (push:remoteref) are essentially via `branch_get_upstream`, which
is also used for %(upstream):

	branch && branch->merge && branch->merge[0] &&
		    	    branch->merge[0]->dst)

but `git push` does different checks:

	if (!branch->merge_nr || !branch->merge || !branch->remote_name)
		die(_("The current branch %s has no upstream branch.\n"...
	if (branch->merge_nr != 1)
		die(_("The current branch %s has multiple upstream branches, "
		    "refusing to push."), branch->name);

in particular git push fails if merge_nr !=1 or if branch has no remote,
whereas %(push) will still indicates a push branch (assuming I fix
is_workflow_triangular).

So I'll need to add a `branch_get_push` with these checks instead.

So I first send this patch as an RFC, and I'll see how to proceed
afterwards to handle these remaining corner cases.
Luckily, having a pushRemote but no remote, or several merge in the branch
config are probably not too common.

=> So one question I have first is about the case when we do have a
branch.pushRemote but not a branch.remote.
Should this still be considered a triangular workflow?

According to git-push, no:

	static int is_workflow_triangular(struct remote *remote)
	{
		struct remote *fetch_remote = remote_get(NULL);
		return (fetch_remote && fetch_remote != remote);
	}

but I would argue that we should.

This would change nothing for push.default=upstream, since currently we
check that `branch` has a remote_name in `setup_push_upstream` so it fails
anyway even if the workflow is not explicitly triangular, but this would
make push.default=simple behave as current, exactly as when branch.remote
is different from branch.pushRemote (and I would argue that no
branch.remote is a particular case of this situation).


PS: the first patch has no tests because I add them in the second patch, it
is more convenient to add them at once and test both patches.

PPS: v4 and v5 are intermediate versions I made but did not send to the ML.


Damien Robert (2):
  remote.c: fix %(push) for triangular workflows
  remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref)

 remote.c                | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh |  81 +++++++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

-- 
Patched on top of v2.26.0-106-g9fadedd637 (git version 2.26.0)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-04-06 17:57 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
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             ` Damien Robert [this message]
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=20200406175648.25737-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com \
    --to=damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com \
    --cc=damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] %(push) and %(push:remoteref) bug fixes' \
    /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).