When we parse a string like "foo@{upstream}", we look for
the first "@"-sign, and check to see if it is an upstream
mark. However, since branch names can contain an @, we may
also see "@foo@{upstream}". In this case, we check only the
first @, and ignore the second. As a result, we do not find
the upstream.
We can solve this by iterating through all @-marks in the
string, and seeing if any is a legitimate upstream or
empty-at mark.
Another strategy would be to parse from the right-hand side
of the string. However, that does not work for the
"empty_at" case, which allows "@@{upstream}". We need to
find the left-most one in this case (and we then recurse as
"HEAD@{upstream}").
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
get_sha1() cannot currently parse a valid object name like
"HEAD:@{upstream}" (assuming that such an oddly named file
exists in the HEAD commit). It takes two passes to parse the
string:
1. It first considers the whole thing as a ref, which
results in looking for the upstream of "HEAD:".
2. It finds the colon, parses "HEAD" as a tree-ish, and then
finds the path "@{upstream}" in the tree.
For a path that looks like a normal reflog (e.g.,
"HEAD:@{yesterday}"), the first pass is a no-op. We try to
dwim_ref("HEAD:"), that returns zero refs, and we proceed
with colon-parsing.
For "HEAD:@{upstream}", though, the first pass ends up in
interpret_upstream_mark, which tries to find the branch
"HEAD:". When it sees that the branch does not exist, it
actually dies rather than returning an error to the caller.
As a result, we never make it to the second pass.
One obvious way of fixing this would be to teach
interpret_upstream_mark to simply report "no, this isn't an
upstream" in such a case. However, that would make the
error-reporting for legitimate upstream cases significantly
worse. Something like "bogus@{upstream}" would simply report
"unknown revision: bogus@{upstream}", while the current code
diagnoses a wide variety of possible misconfigurations (no
such branch, branch exists but does not have upstream, etc).
However, we can take advantage of the fact that a branch
name cannot contain a colon. Therefore even if we find an
upstream mark, any prefix with a colon must mean that
the upstream mark we found is actually a pathname, and
should be disregarded completely. This patch implements that
logic.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Currently, when no (valid) upstream is configured for a branch, you get
an error like:
$ git show @{u}
error: No upstream configured for branch 'upstream-error'
error: No upstream configured for branch 'upstream-error'
fatal: ambiguous argument '@{u}': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'
The "error: " line actually appears twice, and the rest of the error
message is useless. In sha1_name.c:interpret_branch_name(), there is
really no point in processing further if @{u} couldn't be resolved, and
we might as well die() instead of returning an error(). After making
this change, you get:
$ git show @{u}
fatal: No upstream configured for branch 'upstream-error'
Also tweak a few tests in t1507 to expect this output.
This only turns error() that may be called after we know we are
dealing with an @{upstream} marker into die(), without touching
silent error returns "return -1" from the function. Any caller that
wants to handle an error condition itself will not be hurt by this
change, unless they want to see the message from error() and then
exit silently without giving its own message, which needs to be
fixed anyway.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Syntax branchname@{upstream} should interpret its argument as a name of
a branch. Add the test to check that it doesn't try to interpret it as a
refname if the branch in question does not exist.
Signed-off-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If the branch configured as upstream didn't have a local tracking
branch, git said "Upstream branch not found". We can be more helpful,
and separate the cases when upstream is not configured, and when it is
configured, but the upstream branch is not tracked in a local branch.
The following configuration leads to the second scenario:
[remote "origin"]
url = ...
fetch = refs/heads/master
[branch "master"]
remote = origin
merge = refs/heads/master
'git pull' will work on master, but master@{upstream} is not defined.
Signed-off-by: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Instead of just saying that no upstream exists for such branch,
which is true but not very helpful, check that there's no
refs/heads/barnhc_wiht_tpyo and tell it to the user.
Signed-off-by: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When using @{u} or @{upstream} it is common to omit the branch name,
implying current branch. If the upstream is not configured, the error
message was "No upstream branch found for ''".
When resolving '@{u}', branch_get() is called, which almost always
returns a description of a branch. This allows us to use a branch name
in the error message, even if the user said something like '@{u}'.
The only case when branch_get() returns NULL is when HEAD points to so
something which is not a branch. Of course this also means that no
upstream is configured, but it is better to directly say that HEAD
does not point to a branch.
Signed-off-by: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In preparation for future changes, add tests which show error messages
with @{upstream} in various conditions:
- test branch@{u} with . as remote
- check error message for branch@{u} on a branch with
* no upstream,
* on a branch with a configured upstream which doesn't have a
remote-tracking branch
- check error message for branch@{u} when branch 'branch' does not
exist
- check error message for @{u} without the branch name
Right now the messages are very similar, but various cases can and
will be distinguished.
Note: test_i18ncmp is not used, because currently error output is not
internationalized. test_cmp will be switched to test_i18ncmp in a later
patch, when error messages are internationalized.
Signed-off-by: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
(Just like we did for documentation already)
In the process, we change "non-remote branch" to "branch outside the
refs/remotes/ hierarchy" to avoid the ugly "non-remote-tracking branch".
The new formulation actually corresponds to how the code detects this
case (i.e. prefixcmp(refname, "refs/remotes")).
Also, we use 'remote-tracking branch' in generated merge messages (by
merge an fmt-merge-msg).
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
