On 08/23/2012 10:54 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:10:31AM +0200, mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
>> From: Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu>
>> fetch_pack() remotes duplicates from the list (nr_heads, heads),
>> thereby shrinking the list.  But previously, the caller was not
>> informed about the shrinkage.  This would cause a spurious error
>> message to be emitted by cmd_fetch_pack() if "git fetch-pack" is
>> called with duplicate refnames.
>> So change the signature of fetch_pack() to accept nr_heads by
>> reference, and if any duplicates were removed then modify it to
>> reflect the number of remaining references.
>> The last test of t5500 inexplicably *required* "git fetch-pack" to
>> fail when fetching a list of references that contains duplicates;
>> i.e., it insisted on the buggy behavior.  So change the test to expect
>> the correct behavior.
> Eek, yeah, the current behavior is obviously wrong. The
> remove_duplicates code comes from 310b86d (fetch-pack: do not barf when
> duplicate re patterns are given, 2006-11-25) and clearly meant for
> fetch-pack to handle this case gracefully.
>> diff --git a/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh b/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh
>> index 3cc3346..0d4edcb 100755
>> --- a/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh
>> +++ b/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh
>> @@ -391,7 +391,7 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch mixed refs from cmdline and 
>> stdin' '
>>  test_expect_success 'test duplicate refs from stdin' '
>>      (
>>      cd client &&
>> -    test_must_fail git fetch-pack --stdin --no-progress .. <../input.dup
>> +    git fetch-pack --stdin --no-progress .. <../input.dup
>>      ) >output &&
>>      cut -d " " -f 2 <output | sort >actual &&
>>      test_cmp expect actual
> It's interesting that the output was the same before and after the fix.
> I guess that is because the error comes at the very end, when we are
> making sure all of the provided heads have been consumed.

"git fetch-pack" emits information about successfully-received
references regardless of whether some requested references were not
received.  The "no such remote ref %s" output goes to stderr.  So the
only difference between before/after fix should be what is written to
stderr, whereas the test only looks at stdout.


Michael Haggerty
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to