summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2021-07-22pull: abort by default when fast-forwarding is not possibleLibravatar Elijah Newren1-2/+2
We have for some time shown a long warning when the user does not specify how to reconcile divergent branches with git pull. Make it an error now. Initial-patch-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19t55[23]*: adjust the references to the default branch name "main"Libravatar Johannes Schindelin1-9/+9
Carefully excluding t5526, which sees independent development elsewhere at the time of writing, we use `main` as the default branch name in t55[23]*. This trick was performed via $ (cd t && sed -i -e 's/master/main/g' -e 's/MASTER/MAIN/g' \ -e 's/Master/Main/g' -e 's/naster/nain/g' -- \ t55[23]*.sh && git checkout HEAD -- t5526\*) Note that t5533 contains a variation of the name `master` (`naster`) that we rename here, too. This commit allows us to define `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main` for that range of tests. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19tests: mark tests relying on the current default for `init.defaultBranch`Libravatar Johannes Schindelin1-0/+3
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>
2020-08-18fetch: optionally allow disabling FETCH_HEAD updateLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+7
If you run fetch but record the result in remote-tracking branches, and either if you do nothing with the fetched refs (e.g. you are merely mirroring) or if you always work from the remote-tracking refs (e.g. you fetch and then merge origin/branchname separately), you can get away with having no FETCH_HEAD at all. Teach "git fetch" a command line option "--[no-]write-fetch-head". The default is to write FETCH_HEAD, and the option is primarily meant to be used with the "--no-" prefix to override this default, because there is no matching fetch.writeFetchHEAD configuration variable to flip the default to off (in which case, the positive form may become necessary to defeat it). Note that under "--dry-run" mode, FETCH_HEAD is never written; otherwise you'd see list of objects in the file that you do not actually have. Passing `--write-fetch-head` does not force `git fetch` to write the file. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-10pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase or to mergeLibravatar Alex Henrie1-11/+11
Often novice Git users forget to say "pull --rebase" and end up with an unnecessary merge from upstream. What they usually want is either "pull --rebase" in the simpler cases, or "pull --ff-only" to update the copy of main integration branches, and rebase their work separately. The pull.rebase configuration variable exists to help them in the simpler cases, but there is no mechanism to make these users aware of it. Issue a warning message when no --[no-]rebase option from the command line and no pull.rebase configuration variable is given. This will inconvenience those who never want to "pull --rebase", who haven't had to do anything special, but the cost of the inconvenience is paid only once per user, which should be a reasonable cost to help a number of new users. Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-04-18merge: cleanup messages like commitLibravatar Denton Liu1-0/+8
This change allows git-merge messages to be cleaned up with the commit.cleanup configuration or --cleanup option, just like how git-commit does it. We also give git-pull the option of --cleanup so that it can also take advantage of this change. Finally, add testing to ensure that messages are properly cleaned up. Note that some newlines that were added to the commit message were removed so that if a file were read via -F, it would be copied faithfully. Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-10-13pull: pass --signoff/--no-signoff to "git merge"Libravatar W. Trevor King1-0/+45
merge can take --signoff, but without pull passing --signoff down, it is inconvenient to use; allow 'pull' to take the option and pass it through. The order of options in merge-options.txt is mostly alphabetical by long option since 7c85d274 (Documentation/merge-options.txt: order options in alphabetical groups, 2009-10-22). The long-option bit didn't make it into the commit message, but it's under the fold in [1]. I've put --signoff between --log and --stat to preserve the alphabetical order. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/87iqe7zspn.fsf@jondo.cante.net/ Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-04-21pull: pass --allow-unrelated-histories to "git merge"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+21
The previous commit said: We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do so and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others, because such a "two project merge" would be done after fetching the other project into some location in the working tree of an existing project and making sure how well they fit together, it is sufficient to allow a local merge without such an option pass-through from "git pull" to "git merge". Prepare a patch to make it a reality, just in case it is needed. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-06-02pull: handle git-fetch's options as wellLibravatar Paul Tan1-0/+14
While parsing the command-line arguments, git-pull stops parsing at the first unrecognized option, assuming that any subsequent options are for git-fetch, and can thus be kept in the shell's positional parameters list, so that it can be passed to git-fetch via the expansion of "$@". However, certain functions in git-pull assume that the positional parameters do not contain any options: * error_on_no_merge_candidates() uses the number of positional parameters to determine which error message to print out, and will thus print the wrong message if git-fetch's options are passed in as well. * the call to get_remote_merge_branch() assumes that the positional parameters only contains the optional repo and refspecs, and will thus silently fail if git-fetch's options are passed in as well. * --dry-run is a valid git-fetch option, but if provided after any git-fetch options, it is not recognized by git-pull and thus git-pull will continue to run the merge or rebase. Fix these bugs by teaching git-pull to parse git-fetch's options as well. Add tests to prevent regressions. This removes the limitation where git-fetch's options have to come after git-merge's and git-rebase's options on the command line. Update the documentation to reflect this. Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-05-29t5521: test --dry-run does not make any changesLibravatar Paul Tan1-0/+13
Test that when --dry-run is provided to git-pull, it does not make any changes, namely: * --dry-run gets passed to git-fetch, so no FETCH_HEAD will be created and no refs will be fetched. * The index and work tree will not be modified. Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-09test: test_must_be_empty helperLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-13/+13
There are quite a lot places where an output file is expected to be empty, and we fail the test when it is not. The output from running the test script with -i -v can be helped if we showed the unexpected contents at that point. We could of course do >expected.empty && test_cmp expected.empty actual but this is commmon enough to be done with a dedicated helper. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-03-16pull: Apply -q and -v options to rebase mode as wellLibravatar Peter Eisentraut1-0/+27
git pull passed -q and -v only to git merge, but they can be useful for git rebase as well, so pass them there, too. In particular, using -q shuts up the "Already up-to-date." message. Especially, a new test script runs the same "pull --rebase" twice to make sure both cases are quiet, when it has something to fetch and when it is already up to date. Signed-off-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-24fetch --all/--multiple: keep all the fetched branch informationLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+18
Since "git fetch" learned "--all" and "--multiple" options, it has become tempting for users to say "git pull --all". Even though it may fetch from remotes that do not need to be fetched from for merging with the current branch, it is handy. "git fetch" however clears the list of fetched branches every time it contacts a different remote. Unless the current branch is configured to merge with a branch from a remote that happens to be the last in the list of remotes that are contacted, "git pull" that fetches from multiple remotes will not be able to find the branch it should be merging with. Make "fetch" clear FETCH_HEAD (unless --append is given) and then append the list of branches fetched to it (even when --append is not given). That way, "pull" will be able to find the data for the branch being merged in FETCH_HEAD no matter where the remote appears in the list of remotes to be contacted by "git fetch". Reported-by: Michael Lukashov Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-24builtin-fetch --all/--multi: propagate options correctlyLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+21
When running a subfetch, the code propagated some options but not others. Propagate --force, --update-head-ok and --keep options as well. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-02-24t5521: fix and modernizeLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-26/+20
All of these tests were bogus, as they created new directory and tried to run "git pull" without even running "git init" in there. They were mucking with the repository in $TEST_DIRECTORY. While fixing it, modernize the style not to chdir around outside of subshell. Otherwise a failed test will take us to an unexpected directory and we need to chdir back to the test directory in each test, which is ugly and error prone. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-11-14Teach/Fix pull/fetch -q/-v optionsLibravatar Tuncer Ayaz1-0/+60
Implement git-pull --quiet and git-pull --verbose by adding the options to git-pull and fixing verbosity handling in git-fetch. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>