git/t/t5528-push-default.sh

223 lines
7 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
#!/bin/sh
test_description='check various push.default settings'
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main
tests: mark tests relying on the current default for `init.defaultBranch` In addition to the manual adjustment to let the `linux-gcc` CI job run the test suite with `master` and then with `main`, this patch makes sure that GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME is set in all test scripts that currently rely on the initial branch name being `master by default. To determine which test scripts to mark up, the first step was to force-set the default branch name to `master` in - all test scripts that contain the keyword `master`, - t4211, which expects `t/t4211/history.export` with a hard-coded ref to initialize the default branch, - t5560 because it sources `t/t556x_common` which uses `master`, - t8002 and t8012 because both source `t/annotate-tests.sh` which also uses `master`) This trick was performed by this command: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/\(test-lib\|lib-\(bash\|cvs\|git-svn\)\|gitweb-lib\)\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' $(git grep -l master t/t[0-9]*.sh) \ t/t4211*.sh t/t5560*.sh t/t8002*.sh t/t8012*.sh After that, careful, manual inspection revealed that some of the test scripts containing the needle `master` do not actually rely on a specific default branch name: either they mention `master` only in a comment, or they initialize that branch specificially, or they do not actually refer to the current default branch. Therefore, the aforementioned modification was undone in those test scripts thusly: $ git checkout HEAD -- \ t/t0027-auto-crlf.sh t/t0060-path-utils.sh \ t/t1011-read-tree-sparse-checkout.sh \ t/t1305-config-include.sh t/t1309-early-config.sh \ t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh t/t1450-fsck.sh \ t/t2024-checkout-dwim.sh \ t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh \ t/t3040-subprojects-basic.sh t/t3301-notes.sh \ t/t3308-notes-merge.sh t/t3423-rebase-reword.sh \ t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh \ t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh t/t4257-am-interactive.sh \ t/t5323-pack-redundant.sh t/t5401-update-hooks.sh \ t/t5511-refspec.sh t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh \ t/t5529-push-errors.sh t/t5530-upload-pack-error.sh \ t/t5548-push-porcelain.sh \ t/t5552-skipping-fetch-negotiator.sh \ t/t5572-pull-submodule.sh t/t5608-clone-2gb.sh \ t/t5614-clone-submodules-shallow.sh \ t/t7508-status.sh t/t7606-merge-custom.sh \ t/t9302-fast-import-unpack-limit.sh We excluded one set of test scripts in these commands, though: the range of `git p4` tests. The reason? `git p4` stores the (foreign) remote branch in the branch called `p4/master`, which is obviously not the default branch. Manual analysis revealed that only five of these tests actually require a specific default branch name to pass; They were modified thusly: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/lib-git-p4\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' t/t980[0167]*.sh t/t9811*.sh Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-18 23:44:19 +00:00
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
. ./test-lib.sh
test_expect_success 'setup bare remotes' '
git init --bare repo1 &&
git remote add parent1 repo1 &&
git init --bare repo2 &&
git remote add parent2 repo2 &&
test_commit one &&
git push parent1 HEAD &&
git push parent2 HEAD
'
# $1 = local revision
# $2 = remote revision (tested to be equal to the local one)
# $3 = [optional] repo to check for actual output (repo1 by default)
check_pushed_commit () {
git log -1 --format='%h %s' "$1" >expect &&
git --git-dir="${3:-repo1}" log -1 --format='%h %s' "$2" >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual
}
# $1 = push.default value
# $2 = expected target branch for the push
# $3 = [optional] repo to check for actual output (repo1 by default)
test_push_success () {
git ${1:+-c} ${1:+push.default="$1"} push &&
check_pushed_commit HEAD "$2" "$3"
}
# $1 = push.default value
# check that push fails and does not modify any remote branch
test_push_failure () {
git --git-dir=repo1 log --no-walk --format='%h %s' --all >expect &&
test_must_fail git ${1:+-c} ${1:+push.default="$1"} push &&
git --git-dir=repo1 log --no-walk --format='%h %s' --all >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual
}
# $1 = success or failure
# $2 = push.default value
# $3 = branch to check for actual output (main or foo)
# $4 = [optional] switch to triangular workflow
test_pushdefault_workflow () {
workflow=central
pushdefault=parent1
if test -n "${4-}"; then
workflow=triangular
pushdefault=parent2
fi
test_expect_success "push.default = $2 $1 in $workflow workflows" "
test_config branch.main.remote parent1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/foo &&
test_config remote.pushdefault $pushdefault &&
test_commit commit-for-$2${4+-triangular} &&
test_push_$1 $2 $3 ${4+repo2}
"
}
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
test_expect_success '"upstream" pushes to configured upstream' '
git checkout main &&
test_config branch.main.remote parent1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/foo &&
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
test_commit two &&
test_push_success upstream foo
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
'
test_expect_success '"upstream" does not push on unconfigured remote' '
git checkout main &&
test_unconfig branch.main.remote &&
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
test_commit three &&
test_push_failure upstream
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
'
test_expect_success '"upstream" does not push on unconfigured branch' '
git checkout main &&
test_config branch.main.remote parent1 &&
test_unconfig branch.main.merge &&
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
test_commit four &&
test_push_failure upstream
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
'
test_expect_success '"upstream" does not push when remotes do not match' '
git checkout main &&
test_config branch.main.remote parent1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/foo &&
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
test_config push.default upstream &&
test_commit five &&
test_must_fail git push parent2
'
test_expect_success 'push from/to new branch with upstream, matching and simple' '
git checkout -b new-branch &&
test_push_failure simple &&
test_push_failure matching &&
test_push_failure upstream
'
test_expect_success '"matching" fails if none match' '
git init --bare empty &&
test_must_fail git push empty : 2>actual &&
test_i18ngrep "Perhaps you should specify a branch" actual
'
test_expect_success 'push ambiguously named branch with upstream, matching and simple' '
git checkout -b ambiguous &&
test_config branch.ambiguous.remote parent1 &&
test_config branch.ambiguous.merge refs/heads/ambiguous &&
git tag ambiguous &&
test_push_success simple ambiguous &&
test_push_success matching ambiguous &&
test_push_success upstream ambiguous
'
test_expect_success 'push from/to new branch with current creates remote branch' '
test_config branch.new-branch.remote repo1 &&
git checkout new-branch &&
test_push_success current new-branch
'
test_expect_success 'push to existing branch, with no upstream configured' '
test_config branch.main.remote repo1 &&
git checkout main &&
test_push_failure simple &&
test_push_failure upstream
'
test_expect_success 'push to existing branch, upstream configured with same name' '
test_config branch.main.remote repo1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/main &&
git checkout main &&
test_commit six &&
test_push_success upstream main &&
test_commit seven &&
test_push_success simple main
'
test_expect_success 'push to existing branch, upstream configured with different name' '
test_config branch.main.remote repo1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/other-name &&
git checkout main &&
test_commit eight &&
test_push_success upstream other-name &&
test_commit nine &&
test_push_failure simple &&
git --git-dir=repo1 log -1 --format="%h %s" "other-name" >expect-other-name &&
test_push_success current main &&
git --git-dir=repo1 log -1 --format="%h %s" "other-name" >actual-other-name &&
test_cmp expect-other-name actual-other-name
'
# We are on 'main', which integrates with 'foo' from parent1
# remote (set in test_pushdefault_workflow helper). Push to
# parent1 in centralized, and push to parent2 in triangular workflow.
# The parent1 repository has 'main' and 'foo' branches, while
# the parent2 repository has only 'main' branch.
#
# test_pushdefault_workflow() arguments:
# $1 = success or failure
# $2 = push.default value
# $3 = branch to check for actual output (main or foo)
# $4 = [optional] switch to triangular workflow
# update parent1's main (which is not our upstream)
test_pushdefault_workflow success current main
# update parent1's foo (which is our upstream)
test_pushdefault_workflow success upstream foo
# upstream is foo which is not the name of the current branch
test_pushdefault_workflow failure simple main
# main and foo are updated
test_pushdefault_workflow success matching main
# main is updated
test_pushdefault_workflow success current main triangular
# upstream mode cannot be used in triangular
test_pushdefault_workflow failure upstream foo triangular
# in triangular, 'simple' works as 'current' and update the branch
# with the same name.
test_pushdefault_workflow success simple main triangular
# main is updated (parent2 does not have foo)
test_pushdefault_workflow success matching main triangular
# default tests, when no push-default is specified. This
# should behave the same as "simple" in non-triangular
# settings, and as "current" otherwise.
test_expect_success 'default behavior allows "simple" push' '
test_config branch.main.remote parent1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/main &&
test_config remote.pushdefault parent1 &&
test_commit default-main-main &&
test_push_success "" main
'
test_expect_success 'default behavior rejects non-simple push' '
test_config branch.main.remote parent1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/foo &&
test_config remote.pushdefault parent1 &&
test_commit default-main-foo &&
test_push_failure ""
'
test_expect_success 'default triangular behavior acts like "current"' '
test_config branch.main.remote parent1 &&
test_config branch.main.merge refs/heads/foo &&
test_config remote.pushdefault parent2 &&
test_commit default-triangular &&
test_push_success "" main repo2
'
push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense The user can say "git push" without specifying any refspec. When using the "upstream" semantics via the push.default configuration, the user wants to update the "upstream" branch of the current branch, which is the branch at a remote repository the current branch is set to integrate with, with this command. However, there are cases that such a "git push" that uses the "upstream" semantics does not make sense: - The current branch does not have branch.$name.remote configured. By definition, "git push" that does not name where to push to will not know where to push to. The user may explicitly say "git push $there", but again, by definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case and we wouldn't know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have branch.$name.remote configured, but it does not specify branch.$name.merge that names what branch at the remote this branch integrates with. "git push" knows where to push in this case (or the user may explicitly say "git push $remote" to tell us where to push), but we do not know which remote branch to update. - The current branch does have its remote and upstream branch configured, but the user said "git push $there", where $there is not the remote named by "branch.$name.remote". By definition, no branch at repository $there is set to integrate with the current branch in this case, and this push is not meant to update any branch at the remote repository $there. The first two cases were already checked correctly, but the third case was not checked and we ended up updating the branch named branch.$name.merge at repository $there, which was totally bogus. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-03-30 23:07:12 +00:00
test_done