From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/3] push: further simplify the logic to assign rejection status
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:30:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1358836230-9197-4-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1358836230-9197-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com>
Instead of using deeply nested if/else statements, first decide what
rejection status we would get if this push weren't forced, and then
assign the rejection reason to the ref->status field and flip the
ref->forced_update field when we forced a push for a ref that indeed
required forcing.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
* The first one mistakenly changed the semantics and reported a
forced push even when the push was done with useless and
unnecessary --force option (e.g. the update was properly
fast-forwarding but --force was given from the command line).
This fixes it.
remote.c | 40 +++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index c991915..af2136d 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -1318,32 +1318,22 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
*/
if (!ref->deletion && !is_null_sha1(ref->old_sha1)) {
- if (!prefixcmp(ref->name, "refs/tags/")) {
- if (!force_ref_update) {
- ref->status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS;
- continue;
- }
+ int status = 0;
+
+ if (!prefixcmp(ref->name, "refs/tags/"))
+ status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS;
+ else if (!has_sha1_file(ref->old_sha1))
+ status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_FETCH_FIRST;
+ else if (!lookup_commit_reference_gently(ref->old_sha1, 1) ||
+ !lookup_commit_reference_gently(ref->new_sha1, 1))
+ status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE;
+ else if (!ref_newer(ref->new_sha1, ref->old_sha1))
+ status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_NONFASTFORWARD;
+
+ if (!force_ref_update)
+ ref->status = status;
+ else if (status)
ref->forced_update = 1;
- } else if (!has_sha1_file(ref->old_sha1)) {
- if (!force_ref_update) {
- ref->status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_FETCH_FIRST;
- continue;
- }
- ref->forced_update = 1;
- } else if (!lookup_commit_reference_gently(ref->old_sha1, 1) ||
- !lookup_commit_reference_gently(ref->new_sha1, 1)) {
- if (!force_ref_update) {
- ref->status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE;
- continue;
- }
- ref->forced_update = 1;
- } else if (!ref_newer(ref->new_sha1, ref->old_sha1)) {
- if (!force_ref_update) {
- ref->status = REF_STATUS_REJECT_NONFASTFORWARD;
- continue;
- }
- ref->forced_update = 1;
- }
}
}
}
--
1.8.1.1.498.gfdee8be
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-22 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-30 1:41 [PATCH v6 0/8] push: update remote tags only with force Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 1/8] push: return reject reasons as a bitset Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 2/8] push: add advice for rejected tag reference Chris Rorvick
2012-12-02 10:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-12-03 3:27 ` [PATCH 0/2] push: honor advice.* configuration Chris Rorvick
2012-12-03 3:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] push: rename config variable for more general use Chris Rorvick
2012-12-03 3:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] push: allow already-exists advice to be disabled Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 3/8] push: flag updates Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 4/8] push: flag updates that require force Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 5/8] push: require force for refs under refs/tags/ Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 6/8] push: require force for annotated tags Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 7/8] push: clarify rejection of update to non-commit-ish Chris Rorvick
2012-11-30 1:41 ` [PATCH v6 8/8] push: cleanup push rules comment Chris Rorvick
2012-12-02 20:43 ` [PATCH] remote.c: fix grammatical error in comment Chris Rorvick
2012-12-03 18:53 ` [PATCH v6 0/8] push: update remote tags only with force Junio C Hamano
2013-01-16 13:32 ` Max Horn
2013-01-16 16:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-16 16:01 ` Jeff King
2013-01-16 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-16 17:43 ` Jeff King
2013-01-16 21:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-17 2:19 ` Chris Rorvick
2013-01-17 3:11 ` Jeff King
2013-01-17 3:42 ` Chris Rorvick
2013-01-16 16:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-16 16:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-17 6:20 ` Chris Rorvick
2013-01-17 6:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-17 13:09 ` Chris Rorvick
2013-01-18 1:06 ` Jeff King
2013-01-18 3:18 ` Chris Rorvick
2013-01-21 23:40 ` Jeff King
2013-01-21 23:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 4:59 ` Chris Rorvick
2013-01-22 6:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 5:53 ` [PATCH 0/3] Finishing touches to "push" advises Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 5:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] push: further clean up fields of "struct ref" Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 5:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] push: introduce REJECT_FETCH_FIRST and REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 6:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 5:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] push: further reduce "struct ref" and simplify the logic Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 6:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 6:30 ` [PATCH 0/3] Finishing touches to "push" advises Junio C Hamano
2013-01-22 6:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] push: further clean up fields of "struct ref" Junio C Hamano
2013-01-23 6:43 ` Jeff King
2013-01-22 6:30 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] push: introduce REJECT_FETCH_FIRST and REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE Junio C Hamano
2013-01-23 6:56 ` Jeff King
2013-01-23 16:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-24 6:43 ` Jeff King
2013-01-22 6:30 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2013-01-22 7:26 ` [PATCH 0/3] Finishing touches to "push" advises Junio C Hamano
2013-01-23 21:55 ` [PATCH v4 " Junio C Hamano
2013-01-23 21:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] push: further clean up fields of "struct ref" Junio C Hamano
2013-01-24 22:22 ` Eric Sunshine
2013-01-23 21:55 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] push: further simplify the logic to assign rejection reason Junio C Hamano
2013-01-23 21:55 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] push: introduce REJECT_FETCH_FIRST and REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE Junio C Hamano
2013-01-24 6:58 ` Jeff King
2013-01-24 17:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-25 4:31 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] Finishing touches to "push" advises Chris Rorvick
2013-01-25 5:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-01-25 5:14 ` Chris Rorvick
2013-01-18 4:36 ` [PATCH v6 0/8] push: update remote tags only with force Junio C Hamano
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1358836230-9197-4-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=chris@rorvick.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).