[PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[Øystein Walle]

git branch -vv will show "gone" next to a remote tracking branch if it
does not exist. for-each-ref is suitable for parsing but had no way of
showing this information.

This introduces "%(upstream:gone)" to display "gone" in the formatted
output if the ref does not exist or an empty string otherwise, analogous
to git branch -vv.

Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com>
---
I took the liberty of sending in a v2 on my own. Removed the last argument to
stat_tracking_info() and used test_config instead of test_when_finished.

 Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt |  5 +++--
 ref-filter.c                       |  9 ++++++++-
 t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh            | 11 +++++++++++
 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
index f57e69b..039a86b 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
@@ -114,8 +114,9 @@ upstream::
 	`refname` above.  Additionally respects `:track` to show
 	"[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.
+	or "=" (in sync) and `:gone` to show "gone" if the remote ref
+	does not exist, or an empty string if it does. Has no effect if
+	the ref does not have tracking information associated with it.
 
 push::
 	The name of a local ref which represents the `@{push}` location
diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
index bc551a7..757f473 100644
--- a/ref-filter.c
+++ b/ref-filter.c
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static struct used_atom {
 	union {
 		char color[COLOR_MAXLEN];
 		struct align align;
-		enum { RR_NORMAL, RR_SHORTEN, RR_TRACK, RR_TRACKSHORT }
+		enum { RR_NORMAL, RR_SHORTEN, RR_TRACK, RR_TRACKSHORT, RR_GONE }
 			remote_ref;
 		struct {
 			enum { C_BARE, C_BODY, C_BODY_DEP, C_LINES, C_SIG, C_SUB } option;
@@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ static void remote_ref_atom_parser(struct used_atom *atom, const char *arg)
 		atom->u.remote_ref = RR_TRACK;
 	else if (!strcmp(arg, "trackshort"))
 		atom->u.remote_ref = RR_TRACKSHORT;
+	else if (!strcmp(arg, "gone"))
+		atom->u.remote_ref = RR_GONE;
 	else
 		die(_("unrecognized format: %%(%s)"), atom->name);
 }
@@ -923,6 +925,11 @@ static void fill_remote_ref_details(struct used_atom *atom, const char *refname,
 			*s = ">";
 		else
 			*s = "<>";
+	} else if (atom->u.remote_ref == RR_GONE) {
+		if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &num_ours, &num_theirs, NULL) < 0)
+			*s = "gone";
+		else
+			*s = "";
 	} else /* RR_NORMAL */
 		*s = refname;
 }
diff --git a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
index 19a2823..f99bfd0 100755
--- a/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
+++ b/t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh
@@ -383,6 +383,17 @@ test_expect_success 'Check that :track[short] works when upstream is invalid' '
 	test_cmp expected actual
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'Check that :gone produces expected results' '
+	cat >expected <<-\EOF &&
+gone
+	EOF
+	test_config branch.master.merge refs/heads/does-not-exist &&
+	git for-each-ref \
+		--format="%(upstream:gone)" \
+		refs/heads >actual &&
+	test_cmp expected actual
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'Check for invalid refname format' '
 	test_must_fail git for-each-ref --format="%(refname:INVALID)"
 '
-- 
2.9.2

Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:35:28PM +0200, Øystein Walle wrote:

> git branch -vv will show "gone" next to a remote tracking branch if it
> does not exist. for-each-ref is suitable for parsing but had no way of
> showing this information.
> 
> This introduces "%(upstream:gone)" to display "gone" in the formatted
> output if the ref does not exist or an empty string otherwise, analogous
> to git branch -vv.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com>
> ---
> I took the liberty of sending in a v2 on my own. Removed the last argument to
> stat_tracking_info() and used test_config instead of test_when_finished.

Whoops, your v2 spurred me to review, but I accidentally read and
responded to v1.

I think test_config may not be the right thing here, though; see my
other comments.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[Øystein Walle]

Hi, Peff

On 24 August 2016 at 20:07, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote
>
> Whoops, your v2 spurred me to review, but I accidentally read and
> responded to v1.
>

Thanks for the review! I was worried this patch had been buried :-)

In the mean time, however, I have discovered that this conflicts with
kn/ref-filter-branch-list in pu. In that topic this specific feature is
implemented as well. They incorporate it into %(upstream:track) instead
of having a separate "sub-atom" (what's the correct nomenclature, by the
way?) more in line with with branch -vv and your idea.

I recall seeing discussions about this work earlier, but I based my
patch on master and forgot to check pu. (It was a spur-of-the-moment
thing fueled by a question in #git about how to parse branch -vv to
delete all local branch who had their remote counter-parts removed after
a fetch --prune.)

Unless that topic gets rejected, or is known to not be merged for a
_long_ while, my patch doesn't add much value.

Regards,
Øsse

Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[Jeff King]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:26:26PM +0200, Øystein Walle wrote:

> In the mean time, however, I have discovered that this conflicts with
> kn/ref-filter-branch-list in pu. In that topic this specific feature is
> implemented as well. They incorporate it into %(upstream:track) instead
> of having a separate "sub-atom" (what's the correct nomenclature, by the
> way?) more in line with with branch -vv and your idea.

Ah, right. I was feeling like this was all vaguely familiar. I think it
would be better to push forward kn/ref-filter-branch-list. According to
the last "what's cooking", I think that topic is waiting on more review.
If you're willing and able to do so, that would be a big help.

Thanks.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[Karthik Nayak]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:26:26PM +0200, Øystein Walle wrote:
>
>> In the mean time, however, I have discovered that this conflicts with
>> kn/ref-filter-branch-list in pu. In that topic this specific feature is
>> implemented as well. They incorporate it into %(upstream:track) instead
>> of having a separate "sub-atom" (what's the correct nomenclature, by the
>> way?) more in line with with branch -vv and your idea.
>

I'm thinking more on the lines of `%(upstream)` being an atom and the
`:track` being
an option under that atom. I like sub-atom though ;)

> Ah, right. I was feeling like this was all vaguely familiar. I think it
> would be better to push forward kn/ref-filter-branch-list. According to
> the last "what's cooking", I think that topic is waiting on more review.
> If you're willing and able to do so, that would be a big help.
>

It's been waiting for review for a _long_ time now.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak

Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[Øystein Walle]

On 25 August 2016 at 07:56, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking more on the lines of `%(upstream)` being an atom and the
> `:track` being an option under that atom. I like sub-atom though ;)
>

On second thought maybe "quark" is better :P

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, right. I was feeling like this was all vaguely familiar. I think
>> it would be better to push forward kn/ref-filter-branch-list.
>> According to the last "what's cooking", I think that topic is waiting
>> on more review. If you're willing and able to do so, that would be a
>> big help.
>>
>
> It's been waiting for review for a _long_ time now.
>

To be perfectly honest my C skills and familiarity with the git source
code is not much to speak of. I very much want to take a close look but
I cannot promise anything worth your time...

But if I do find something I'd like to point out should I just reply
directly to the e-mails containing the patches as one usually does even
though they're months old at this point?


Øsse

Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

[Karthik Nayak]

Hello,

>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, right. I was feeling like this was all vaguely familiar. I think
>>> it would be better to push forward kn/ref-filter-branch-list.
>>> According to the last "what's cooking", I think that topic is waiting
>>> on more review. If you're willing and able to do so, that would be a
>>> big help.
>>>
>>
>> It's been waiting for review for a _long_ time now.
>>
>
> To be perfectly honest my C skills and familiarity with the git source
> code is not much to speak of. I very much want to take a close look but
> I cannot promise anything worth your time...
>
> But if I do find something I'd like to point out should I just reply
> directly to the e-mails containing the patches as one usually does even
> though they're months old at this point?
>

Not that your review would be absolute but it definitely would be a start.

Replying directly to the patches is the way to go I feel.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak