Implement hands on hp-push-tags #103
Conversation
|
I'm not sure what to do when there's a conflict in repo names, i.e., the user already has a repo named |
We can use an alternative fork name such as |
Sure! Maybe I can submit follow-up commits regarding this later. |
|
The follow-up commits are up! |
hands_on/push_tags.py
Outdated
| tag_with_options("v1.0", ["HEAD~1"], verbose) | ||
| annotated_tag_with_options("v0.9", ["HEAD~2", "-m", "First beta release"], verbose) | ||
|
|
||
| pass |
hands_on/push_tags.py
Outdated
| check_existing_fork(username, "git-mastery", REPO_NAME) | ||
| check_same_repo_name(username, REPO_NAME) | ||
|
|
||
| run_command(["gh", "repo", "fork", f"git-mastery/{REPO_NAME}", REPO_NAME, "--clone"], verbose) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I left a comment for @damithc in the original hands-on discussion, but I doubt we actually need to fork the repository for the student. This would avoid polluting the student's Github with excessive repositories they might not be using
|
@woojiahao When I'm implementing the part checking whether the current user has a repo with the same name (but not necessarily a fork), I am a bit confused about the def has_repo(repo_name: str, is_fork: bool, verbose: bool) -> bool:
"""Returns if the given repository exists under the current user's repositories."""
command = ["gh", "repo", "view", repo_name]
if is_fork:
command.extend(["--json", "isFork", "--jq", ".isFork"])
result = run(
command,
verbose,
env={"GH_PAGER": "cat"},
)
return result.is_success() and result.stdout == "true"For this function, if the |
|
@dingZvel Ah good catch, that was a logic bug. I've pushed a fix for it already |
|
I've refactored the program using the new github_cli util functions! It now does the following:
Current issue: If the user already has a repo named Possible solution: Add a new util function |
| def check_existing_fork(username: str, fork_owner_name: str, repo_name: str, verbose: bool) -> None: | ||
| result = run( | ||
| ["gh", | ||
| "api", | ||
| f"repos/{fork_owner_name}/{repo_name}/forks", | ||
| "-q", | ||
| f'''.[] | .owner.login | select(. =="{username}")''', | ||
| ], | ||
| verbose | ||
| ) | ||
| if result.is_success(): | ||
| if result.stdout == username: | ||
| print(f"ERROR: A fork of {fork_owner_name}/{repo_name} already exists! " | ||
| "Please delete the fork and run this download operation again.\n" | ||
| "!Aborting...") | ||
| exit(1) | ||
|
|
||
| def check_same_repo_name(username: str, repo_name: str, verbose: bool) -> str: | ||
| if has_repo(repo_name, False, verbose): | ||
| print(f"Warning: {username}/{repo_name} already exists, the fork repo will be " | ||
| f"named as {username}/{repo_name}-1") | ||
| return repo_name + "-1" | ||
| return repo_name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given what @damithc said, if this is used as part of a series of forks, we would be expecting to have already seen the fork before so that we can push to it. So I think it's worth just keeping the repository and avoiding re-forking when a duplicate is found. This is mostly because there is no real way for us to properly abort from this state given the limitations of the tooling
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right! So just to clarify, when an existing fork is found, should I just skip the forking step, obtain the existing fork's repo name, and then clone it? Can I proceed to update the implementation or should I wait for further discussion first?
3 participants
Exercise Review
Exercise Discussion
#94
Checklist
Git-Masteryorganization, have you created a request for it?repo-smithto validate the exercise grading scheme?test-download.sh?git-autograder?app?