-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 652
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix bug: VersionInBranchNameVersionStrategy only considers the release branch #3455
Fix bug: VersionInBranchNameVersionStrategy only considers the release branch #3455
Conversation
bd3c051
to
ec14032
Compare
Okay I'm done please review and merge to main. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice! Does version-in-branch-pattern
require is-release-branch
to be true
? If so, we should say something about that in the documentation.
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ public void FeatureOnHotfixFeatureBranchDeleted() | |||
fixture.Checkout(hotfix451); | |||
fixture.MergeNoFF(featureBranch); // commit 2 | |||
fixture.Repository.Branches.Remove(featureBranch); | |||
fixture.AssertFullSemver("4.5.1-beta.2", configuration); | |||
fixture.AssertFullSemver("4.5.1-beta.3", configuration); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why did this go from 4.5.1-beta.2
to 4.5.1-beta.3
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm very good question. I think it has something to do with the logic in GitVersionVariables.cs which you know will be changed in PR #2347. I have checked the source of the resulting base version and it looks okay for me:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But the .3
in 4.5.1-beta.3
indicates that there's 3 commits since the version source, but it is only 2 indicated by the previous .2
as in 4.5.1-beta.2
. So this feels like a bug to me? Why does it count to 3 and not 2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have take a look and I think it's correct. If you take a look to the following figure:
then you see that GitVersion uses the highest version (4.5.1). If there are ambiguous results (like in this case) the oldest commit as a source will be taken. Here it is the commit with the identifier bf7a8f7f. Thus if you have this in mind 4.5.1-beta.3
is totally correct. See yor comment here #2394 (comment)
If you don't agree then we need to create a bug or feature issue and change the logic. But this has nothing to do with this PR IMO.
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ public void CanTakeVersionFromHotfixesBranch() | |||
|
|||
// create hotfix branch | |||
Commands.Checkout(fixture.Repository, fixture.Repository.CreateBranch("hotfixes/1.1.1")); | |||
fixture.AssertFullSemver("1.1.0"); // We are still on a tagged commit | |||
fixture.AssertFullSemver("1.1.1+0"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we not still on a tagged commit here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm very good question. I think you have found a bug. ;) The same question applies to the following scenario:
[Test]
public void __Just_A_Test__()
{
using var fixture = new EmptyRepositoryFixture();
fixture.MakeATaggedCommit("1.0.0");
fixture.BranchTo("release/1.1.0");
fixture.AssertFullSemver("1.1.0+0");
}
Why it yields to 1.1.0 and not to 1.0.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is one of those edge-cases that no matter which solution we pick, we are going to make some people unhappy. I'm in the "a tag should always win" camp, but I can definitely see how some people would expect release/1.1.0
to yield 1.1.0
even though the same commit is tagged 1.0.0
. I don't think there's a right answer here, we just need to pick one way or the other, stick to it and document it well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this discussion is related to this issue here: Same version computed on different branches #3453
We need to introduce a new branch related property (like take-incremented-version
) or make the behavior dependent on the used version-mode
option and make it configurable. The point is if you are on the hotfix branch you don't want to have properly the tagged version you would like to have the next version 1.1.0+0
. Other way around if you are on the main branch you would like to have the tagged version 1.0.0
. In both cases you are on the same commit with different result dependent on what branch you are. If you don't want this behavior neither then you are able to change it. I see the following enum values: TakeAlwaysBaseVersion
, TakeTaggedOtherwiseIncrementedVersion
, TakeAlwaysIncrementedVersion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we were to base this on mode
, how would you suggest we do it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm I think it would be not a good idea to put it on the version-mode
option because it is very confusing and would lead to issues complaining about that the tag is not recognice correctly.
Also if I think about the behavior of real live deplyoment scenarios (trunk-based, continues-deployment, continues-delivery and manually-deployment) this question is totally independent of that. Because it depends on the fact: Do I create a artifact after I have tagged the commit or before. Or do I take a pre-release version and just re-declare it to production version or not.
What is your opinion about that?
Can you please answer this, @HHobeck? ☝🏼 |
Yes you are right the property |
@@ -80,6 +82,7 @@ public void CanTakeVersionFromNameOfConfiguredReleaseBranch(string branchName, s | |||
var repository = fixture.Repository.ToGitRepository(); | |||
|
|||
var configuration = GitFlowConfigurationBuilder.New | |||
.WithLabelPrefix("([vV]|lts-)?") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to document this change being required, perhaps?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is requirement behind it to support lts before the number will be present? For sure if you define support/2.0.0-lts it works by default if you define support/lts-2.0.0 it's not working by default and a change in the configuration needs to be done (either changing label-prefix
or version-in-branch-name
). I think this line is not necessary anymore because I have changed the test case. Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps we can add a negative test for this, then? To illustrate that hotfix/downgrade-some-lib-to-3.2.1
don't generate the version number 3.2.1
by default. Such a test case would also provide as good documentation of why this change is made in the first place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have added a new test DoesNotTakeVersionFromNameWhenItHasBeenAccidentalSpecifiedInBranch
...sion.Core.Tests/VersionCalculation/Strategies/VersionInBranchNameBaseVersionStrategyTests.cs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/GitVersion.Core/VersionCalculation/SemanticVersioning/ReferenceNameExtensions.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
844f00e
to
ad5f11d
Compare
Okay I'm done with the integration of review comments. Please check and merge to main. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's suddenly a lot of formatting changes here. Please do formatting and refactoring in separate pull requests from bug fixes and feature implementations.
Also, I would love to see a test case added for hotfix/downgrade-library-to-3.1.2
not yielding the version number 3.1.2
as that seems to be one of the primary reasons behind this PR.
You mean such tests!? There are already existing. Nevermind let me know if you are missing test scenarios. [Test]
public void DoesNotTakeVersionFromNameOfNonReleaseBranch()
{
using var fixture = new BaseGitFlowRepositoryFixture("1.0.0");
fixture.CreateAndMergeBranchIntoDevelop("pull-request/improved-by-upgrading-some-lib-to-4.5.6");
fixture.CreateAndMergeBranchIntoDevelop("hotfix/downgrade-some-lib-to-3.2.1-to-avoid-breaking-changes");
fixture.AssertFullSemver("1.1.0-alpha.5");
}
[TestCase("release-2.0.0", "2.0.0")]
[TestCase("release/3.0.0", "3.0.0")]
[TestCase("support/2.0.0-lts", "2.0.0")]
[TestCase("support-3.0.0-lts", "3.0.0")]
[TestCase("hotfix/2.0.0", "2.0.0")]
[TestCase("hotfix-3.0.0", "3.0.0")]
[TestCase("hotfix/2.0.0-lts", "2.0.0")]
[TestCase("hotfix-3.0.0-lts", "3.0.0")]
public void CanTakeVersionFromNameOfConfiguredReleaseBranch(string branchName, string expectedBaseVersion)
{
using var fixture = new EmptyRepositoryFixture();
fixture.MakeACommit();
fixture.CreateBranch(branchName);
var repository = fixture.Repository.ToGitRepository();
var configuration = GitFlowConfigurationBuilder.New
.WithBranch("support", builder => builder.WithIsReleaseBranch(true))
...
} |
0560fd4
to
4c10925
Compare
./build.ps1 -Stage build -Target BuildPrepare ./build.ps1 -Stage docs -Target GenerateSchemas
…dent: add 2 spaces list-item-indent remark-lint
src/GitVersion.Core.Tests/IntegrationTests/VersionInMergedBranchNameScenarios.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…chNameScenarios.cs Co-authored-by: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email protected]>
137647f
to
3795785
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fabulous! 🚀
Thank you @HHobeck for your contribution! |
Fix [Bug] VersionInBranchNameVersionStrategy only considers the release branch #2693
Is related to #2336
Close #2693
Description
Related Issue
Motivation and Context
How Has This Been Tested?
Screenshots (if appropriate):
Checklist: