Re: [PATCH v7 07/17] ref-filter: make %(upstream:track) prints "[gone]" for invalid upstreams

[Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
>
> Borrowing from branch.c's implementation print "[gone]" whenever an
> unknown upstream ref is encountered instead of just ignoring it.
>

This makes sense.

> This makes sure that when branch.c is ported over to using ref-filter
> APIs for printing, this feature is not lost.
>

Right.

> Make changes to t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh and
> Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt to reflect this change.
>

This will change behavior if people were expecting it to remain
silent, but I think this could be considered a bug.

> Mentored-by: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
> Mentored-by: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
> Helped-by : Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt | 3 ++-
>  ref-filter.c                       | 4 +++-
>  t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh            | 2 +-
>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
> index 92184c4..fd365eb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
> @@ -119,7 +119,8 @@ upstream::
>         "[ahead N, behind M]" and `:trackshort` to show the terse
>         version: ">" (ahead), "<" (behind), "<>" (ahead and behind),
>         or "=" (in sync).  Has no effect if the ref does not have
> -       tracking information associated with it.
> +       tracking information associated with it. `:track` also prints
> +       "[gone]" whenever unknown upstream ref is encountered.
>

I think this is poorly worded. If I understand, "has no effect if the
ref does not have tracking information" so in that case we still print
nothing, right? but otherwise we print [gone] only when the upstream
ref no longer actually exists locally? I wonder if there is a better
wording for this? I don't have one. Any suggestions to avoid confusing
these two cases?

>  push::
>         The name of a local ref which represents the `@{push}` location
> diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
> index b8b8a95..6d51b80 100644
> --- a/ref-filter.c
> +++ b/ref-filter.c
> @@ -1049,8 +1049,10 @@ static void fill_remote_ref_details(struct used_atom *atom, const char *refname,
>                 *s = shorten_unambiguous_ref(refname, warn_ambiguous_refs);
>         else if (atom->u.remote_ref == RR_TRACK) {
>                 if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours,
> -                                      &num_theirs, NULL))
> +                                      &num_theirs, NULL)) {
> +                       *s = "[gone]";
>                         return;
> +               }
>
>                 if (!num_ours && !num_theirs)
>                         *s = "";
> diff --git a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> index 2be0a3f..a92b36f 100755
> --- a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> +++ b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ test_expect_success 'Check that :track[short] cannot be used with other atoms' '
>
>  test_expect_success 'Check that :track[short] works when upstream is invalid' '
>         cat >expected <<-\EOF &&
> -
> +       [gone]
>
>         EOF
>         test_when_finished "git config branch.master.merge refs/heads/master" &&
> --
> 2.10.2
>