i'm trying to set rules for set branches on my repo, but having issues with the pattern to apply only to specific branches.
ie rule to apply only to brances master,develop,release
Issue: the pattern isn't picking up the wrong branches
I tried looking through here, but it's working as expected
https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.5.1/File.html#method-c-fnmatch
I've tried, but not working with 0 branches or everything selected:
{^.*(master).*$,^.*(develop).*$}
[master,develop,release]
[master;develop;release]*
ps this one dose the opposite an applied all brances, but the listed ones:
*[!master|!develop|!release]*
I have a work around, but i'm sure there is a better solution, or rite solution for this.
I basically use the oder of precedence of the rules to have only set branches with the rules i want.
I target every branch except the ones I want, and set no rule.
Then set all branches to require the rule i want to apply to my branches.
The first rule takes president and ensures that only the ones i want, get the rule.
NB there is a
conflict raised in the rule, be this seems more like a warning
As johnfo says in a comment, GitHub's branch protection rule patterns are not regular expressions. In fact, the GitHub documentation mentions that they are specifically Ruby File::FNM_PATHNAME style expressions. This is highly specific (Git itself uses no Ruby code at all).
I snipped the git tag; curiously, you included fnmatch yourself, which is the right tag for someone who might like to supply the right Ruby expressions here. It looks like GitHub do not set the FNM_EXTMATCH flag, so you probably need multiple match expressions (also noted in the comment above). I wouldn't bother answering except that it seemed useful to add some links.
You can try [dm]*[pr] for branches starting with 'd' or 'm' and ending with 'p' or 'm' (for develop and master). I'm sure this can be further refined.
Related
I know this sounds obvious, but I cannot find the answer anywhere: what is the syntax for an OR condition in glob ?
I want to match main OR pre in a branch name, this is for github branches protection configuration. So far I had no choice than to use * which matches unwanted branches.
The rebaseif mercurial extension automates the process, when pulling, of doing a rebase only if the merge can be done automatically with no conflicts. (If there are conflicts to resolve manually, it does not rebase, leaving you ready to do a manual merge of the two branches.) This simplifies and linearizes the history when developers are working in different parts of the code, although any rebase does throw away some information about the state of the world when a developer was doing work. I tend to agree with arguments like this and this that in the general case, rebasing is not a good idea, but I find the rebase-if philosophy appealing for the non-conflict case. I’m on the fence about it, even though I understand that there are still risks of logic errors when changes happen in different parts of the code (and the author of rebaseif extension has come to feel it’s a bad idea..)
I recently went through a complicated and painful bisect, and I think that having a large number of merges of short branches in our repository was the main reason the bisect did not live up to its implied O(lg n) promise. I found myself needing to run "bisect --extend" many times, to stretch the range beyond the merge, going by a couple of changesets at a time, essentially making bisect O(n). I also found it very complicated to keep track of how the bisect was going and to understand what information I'd gained so far, because I couldn't follow the branching when looking at graphs of the repository.
Are there better ways to use bisect (and to look at and understand the revision history) or am I right that the process would have been smoother if we had used rebaseif more in development. Alternately, can you help me understand more concretely what may go wrong using rebase in the non-conflict case: is it likely enough to cause problems that it should be avoided?
I’m tagging this more generally (not just mercurial) since I think rebaseif matches a more typical git workflow: git users may have seen the gotchas.
I think the answer is simple: you have to devide between hard bisects or risky rebasing.
Or, something in between: only rebase if it is very unlikely that the rebase silently breaks things. If a rebase involves only a few changesets which additionally are semantically distant to the changes they are rebased on, it's usually safe to rebase.
Here's an example, where a conflict-free merge breaks things:
Suppose two branches start from a file with this content:
def foo(a):
# do
# something
# with a (an integer)
...
foo(4)
In branch A, this is changed to:
def foo(a):
# now this function is 10 times faster, but only work with positive integers
assert a > 0
# do
# something with
# with a
...
foo(4)
In branch B, it is changed to:
def foo(a):
# do
# something
# with a (an integer)
...
foo(4)
...
foo(-1) # now we have a use case where we need to call foo with -1
Semantically, both edits conflict with each other. However, Mercurial happily merges them without conflicts (in both cases, when rebasing or when doing a regular merge):
def foo(a):
# now this function is 10 times faster, but only work with positive integers
assert a > 0
# do
# something with
# with a
...
foo(4)
...
foo(-1) # now we have a use case where we need to call foo with -1
The advantage of a merge is that a it allows to understand what went wrong at some later point, so you can fix things accordingly. A rebase might throw away information you need to understand bugs caused by automatic merges.
The main argument against git rebase seems to be a philosophical one around "losing history", but if I really cared about that I'd make the final build step a checkin (or the first build step to track all the failed builds too!).
I'm not particularly familiar with Mercurial or bisecting (except that it's a bit like git), but in my month-and-a-bit with git I exclusively stuck to rebase. I also use git rebase -i --autosquash and git add -p a lot.
IME, there's also not that much difference between a rebase and a merge when it comes to fixing conflicts — the answer you linked to suggests "rebaseif" is bad because the "if" conditions on whether the merge proceeded without conflict, whereas it should be conditioned on whether the codebase builds and tests pass.
Perhaps my thinking is skewed by an inherent weakness in git's design (it doesn't explicitly keep track of the history of a branch, i.e. the subset of commits that it's actually pointed to), or perhaps it's just how I work (check that the diff is sane and that it builds, although admittedly after a rebase I don't check that intermediate commits build).
(Aside: For personal projects I often would like to keep track of each build output and corresponding source snapshot, but I've yet to find anything which is good at doing so.)
In CVS I could put $LOG$ into the source file and when the file is checked in $LOG$ will be expanded into true logs in the file.
But how to implement this in Mercurial? Of course I mean the other keyword such as the latest checkin date and time.
For most of the problems keyword expansion solves it creates a whole heap more; isn't recommended in Mercurial CVS/RCS-like Keyword Substitution - Why You Don't Need It however it is documented how to do it with expansions if you really need to.
I'm not the only one to advise against keyword expansion, although there are times it can be useful one really needs to think hard before doing it.
Use the built-in keyword extension.
A couple of important things:
ONLY add the specific files you need keyword expansion to the filename pattern in hgrc [keyword].
The expansion is LOCAL. When your changeset is pushed to another repo, unless that repo also has the same keyword setup, keyword is NOT expanded.
I agree that it should be avoided whenever possible. When it is not possible to avoid is that you need to distribute a few selected files (for example, API headers) to other people (for example, API users), such that there's no way they can use hg to find out the version info.
What source control products have a "diff" facility that ignores white space, braces, etc., in calculating the difference between checked-in versions? I seem to remember that Clearcase's diff did this but Visual SourceSafe (or at least the version I used) did not.
The reason I ask is probably pretty typical. Four perfectly reasonable developers on a team have four entirely different ways of formatting their code. Upon checking out the code last changed by someone else, each will immediately run some kind of program or editor macro to format things the way they like. They make actual code changes. They check-in their changes. They go on vacation. Two days later that program, which had been running fine for two years, blows up. The developer assigned to the bug does a diff between versions and finds 204 differences, only 3 of which are of any significance, because the diff algorithm is lame.
Yes, you can have coding standards. Most everyone finds them dreadful. A solution where everyone can have their cake and eat it too seems far more preferable.
=========
EDIT: Thanks to everyone for some great suggestions.
What I take away from this is:
(1) A source control system with plug-in type diffs is preferable.
(2) Find a diff with suitable options.
(3) Use a good source formatting program and settle on a check-in standard.
Sounds like a plan. Thanks again.
Git does have these options:
--ignore-space-at-eol
Ignore changes in whitespace at EOL.
-b, --ignore-space-change
Ignore changes in amount of whitespace. This ignores whitespace at line end, and considers all other sequences of one or more
whitespace characters to be equivalent.
-w, --ignore-all-space
Ignore whitespace when comparing lines. This ignores differences even if one line has whitespace where the other line has
none.
I am not sure if brace changes can be ignored using Git's diff.
If it is C/C++ code, you can define Astyle rules and then convert the source code's brace style to the one that you want, using Astyle. A git diff will then produce sane output.
Choose one (dreadful) coding standard, write it down in some official coding standards document, and get on with your life, messing with whitespace is not productive work.
And remember you are a professional developer, it's your job to get the project done, changing anything in the code because of a personal style preference hurts the project - it wont only make diff-ing more difficult, it can also introduce hard to find problems if your source formatter or compiler has bugs (and your fancy diff tool won't save you when two co-worker start fighting over casing).
And if someone just doesn't agree to work with the selected style just remind him (or her) that he is programming as a profession not as an hobby, see http://www.ericsink.com/entries/No_Great_Hackers.html
Maybe you should choose one format and run some indentation tool before checking in so that each person can check out, reformat to his/her own preferences, do the changes, reformat back to the official standard and then check in?
A couple of extra steps but they already use indentation tools when working. Maybe it can be a triggered check-in script?
Edit: this would perhaps also solve the brace problem.
(I haven't tried this solution myself, hence the "perhapes" and "maybes", but I have been in projects with the same problems, and it is a pain to try to go through diffs with hundreds of irrelevant changes that are not limited to whitespace, but includes the formatting itself.)
As explained in Is it possible for git-merge to ignore line-ending differences?, it is more a matter to associate the right diff tool to your favorite VCS, rather than to rely on the right VCS option (even if Git does have some options regarding whitespace, like the one mentioned in Alan's answer, it will always be not as complete as one would like).
DiffMerge is the more complete on those "ignore" options, as it can not only ignore spaces but also other "variations" based on the programming language used in a given file.
Subversion apparently supports this, either natively in the latest versions, or by using an alternate diff like Gnu Diff.
Beyond Compare does this (and much much more) and you can integrate it either in Subversion or Sourcesafe as an external diff tool.
I'm wondering if the need to alter the indentation of code to adjust the nesting has any adverse effects on merging changes in a system like SVN.
I've used python with SVN and Mercurial, and have no hassles merging.
It all depends on how the diffing is done - and I suspect that it is character-by-character, which would notice the difference between one level of indent and another.
It works fine so long as everyone on the project has agreed to use the same whitespace style (spaces or tabs).
But I've seen cases where a developer has converted an entire file from spaces to tabs (I think Eclipse had that as a feature, bound to Ctrl+Tab!), which makes spotting diffs near impossible.
Generally source control systems merge on a line-by-line basis by default. I have found that merging Python code is no different from merging any other source code that is reasonably indented. If one programmer wraps a block of code in an if statement (indenting the whole block), and another programmer modifies something inside the block, then there will be a merge conflict. Fortunately, the conflict in this case is super easy to resolve.
If you use an external merge tool, then your tool may support more detailed textual merging algorithms that take the above scenario into account automatically.