Stefan Beller <[email protected]> writes:
> -static int ref_update_to_be_sent(const struct ref *ref, const struct
> send_pack_args *args)
> +static int ref_update_to_be_sent(const struct ref *ref, const struct
> send_pack_args *args, int *atomic_push_failed)
Hmph. Is "atomic push" so special that it deserves a separate
parameter? When we come up with yet another mode of failure, would
we add another parameter to the callers to this function?
> @@ -203,6 +203,12 @@ static int ref_update_to_be_sent(const struct ref *ref,
> const struct send_pack_a
> case REF_STATUS_REJECT_NEEDS_FORCE:
> case REF_STATUS_REJECT_STALE:
> case REF_STATUS_REJECT_NODELETE:
> + if (atomic_push_failed) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Atomic push failed for ref %s. "
> + "Status:%d\n", ref->name, ref->status);
> + *atomic_push_failed = 1;
All other error message that come from the codepaths around here
seem to avoid uppercase. Also maybe you want to use error() here?
> + if (args->use_atomic_push && !atomic_push_supported) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Server does not support atomic-push.");
> + return -1;
> + }
This check logically belongs to the previous step, no?
> + atomic_push = atomic_push_supported && args->use_atomic_push;
>
> if (status_report)
> strbuf_addstr(&cap_buf, " report-status");
> @@ -365,7 +376,8 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
> * the pack data.
> */
> for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> - if (!ref_update_to_be_sent(ref, args))
> + if (!ref_update_to_be_sent(ref, args,
> + args->use_atomic_push ? &atomic_push_failed : NULL))
> continue;
>
> if (!ref->deletion)
> @@ -377,6 +389,23 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
> ref->status = REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT;
> }
>
> + if (atomic_push_failed) {
> + for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> + if (!ref->peer_ref && !args->send_mirror)
> + continue;
> +
> + switch (ref->status) {
> + case REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT:
> + ref->status = REF_STATUS_ATOMIC_PUSH_FAILED;
> + continue;
> + default:
> + ; /* do nothing */
> + }
> + }
> + fprintf(stderr, "Atomic push failed.");
> + return -1;
The same comment as the other fprintf() applies here.
> @@ -728,6 +728,10 @@ static int print_one_push_status(struct ref *ref, const
> char *dest, int count, i
> ref->deletion ? NULL :
> ref->peer_ref,
> "remote failed to report
> status", porcelain);
> break;
> + case REF_STATUS_ATOMIC_PUSH_FAILED:
> + print_ref_status('!', "[rejected]", ref, ref->peer_ref,
> + "atomic-push-failed",
> porcelain);
Why dashed-words-here?
> + break;
> case REF_STATUS_OK:
> print_ok_ref_status(ref, porcelain);
> break;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
