Re: [PATCH] worktree add: improve message for ambiguous remote branch name

Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:

>> +static const char message_advice_ambiguous_remote_tracking_branch[] =
>> +	N_("If you meant to create a worktree from a remote tracking branch on,\n"
>> +	   "e.g. 'origin', you can do so by fully qualifying the name:\n"
>> +	   "\n"
>> +	   "    git worktree add <path> origin/<name>\n"
>> +	   "\n"
>> ...
>> +		char *remote = unique_tracking_name(*new_branch, &oid, &num_matches);
>> +		if (!opts->quiet && !remote && num_matches > 1) {
>> +			if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_CHECKOUT_AMBIGUOUS_REMOTE_BRANCH_NAME))
>> +				advise(_(message_advice_ambiguous_remote_tracking_branch));
>> +			warning(_("'%s' matched multiple (%d) remote tracking branches\n"), branchname, num_matches);
>> +		}
>>  		return remote;
>>  	}
>
> The worktree.guessremote configuration is set.  dwim_branch() is
> called when "git worktree add A/B/X" is run with a single argument
> "A/B/X", which comes here as "path", and that is munged into the
> branchname "X".
>
> We used to pass NULL as the second parameter to unique_tracking_name(),
> so we were only interested in the case where we have exactly one
> matching remote, and if there is 0 or multiple remotes with the
> named branch, we returned NULL from here.
>
> The patch does not change that, but using the branch name, we try to
> see if there are multiple matches, in that case, we give the advice
> message to say "hey, don't be so lazy, as X appears in more than one
> remote, so tell me which one you mean".

Stepping back a bit, I think what I find lacking in the proposed
warning message is not that we lose what the user gave us, such as
'-b <branch>' or '-t'.  While this loss makes it impossible to
simply copy and paste to reproduce what the user may have intended,
it is not the end of the world.

What disturbs me more is that the code holds back information only
it possesses, which would immediately help the user if we shared it.

The reason we got this error may not be that the user did not know
exactly how to spell out the necessary information (such as which
branch to use from which remote) on the command line.  It may be
that the user did not remember some of the necessary details (such
as which remotes have the branch they have in mind).  Displaying
the command line and advising them to use the fully qualified name
might not be the best approach in that case.  Telling them that
they may have meant 'origin', 'upstream', or 'home' (all of which
are remotes with the named branch, though we could not guess which
one of the three to choose) may be much more helpful.