This reverts commit cdfd94837b, as it
does not just apply to "@" (and forms with modifiers like @{u}
applied to it), but also affects e.g. "refs/heads/@/foo", which it
shouldn't.
The basic idea of giving a short-hand might be good, and the topic
can be retried later, but let's revert to avoid affecting existing
use cases for now for the upcoming release.
Typing 'HEAD' is tedious, especially when we can use '@' instead.
The reason for choosing '@' is that it follows naturally from the
ref@op syntax (e.g. HEAD@{u}), except we have no ref, and no
operation, and when we don't have those, it makes sens to assume
'HEAD'.
So now we can use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
Until now '@' was a valid name, but it conflicts with this idea, so
let's make it invalid. Probably very few people, if any, used this name.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
All the tests so far check that @{N} is the same as HEAD@{N} (for
positive N). However, this is not always the case; write a couple of
tests for this.
[fc: simplify some wording]
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add more tests exercising documented functionality.
[fc: commit message and extra tests]
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In some circumstances 'git log' might fail, but not because the @
parsing failed. For example: 'git rev-parse' might succeed and return a
bad object, and then 'git log' would fail.
The layer we want to test is revision parsing, so let's test that
directly.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some committishes might point to the same commit, but through a
different ref, that's why it's better to check directly for the ref,
rather than the commit message.
We can do that by calling rev-parse --symbolic-full-name, and to
differentiate the old from the new behavior we add an extra argument to
the check() helper.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The test is setting up an upstream branch, but there's a much simpler
way of doing that: git branch -u.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Something like foo@{-1} is nonsensical, as the @{-N} syntax
is reserved for "the Nth last branch", and is not an actual
reflog selector. We should not feed such nonsense to
approxidate at all.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Previously interpret_branch_name would see @{-1} and stop
parsing, leaving the @{u} as cruft that provoked an error.
Instead, we should recurse if there is more to parse.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now that we have several different types of @{} syntax, it
is a good idea to test them together, which reveals some
failures.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
