Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add Rollback protection #405
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add Rollback protection #405
Changes from all commits
6cf78a4
b004911
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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'm trying to wrap my head around what's happening here. If I understand
--rollback-protection
correctly, the goal is to prevent rolling back to an ancestor. So here you ensure that the old rev is an ancestor of the new rev.Wouldn't that prevent a user from changing branches?
If the user was on revision
A
, and changed the branch toB
, wouldn't this implementation throw an error?Would it make sense to invert the check and do something like this?
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.
Yes, it would prevent branch changes iff the new branch head is not an ancestor of the old rev.
I see that this might be surprising for users that 'just' want to switch branches.
Maybe an additional update flag
--ignore-rollback-protection
would make sense in these cases?Could you give an example for when the inverted check would be sensible?
`ensureNotAncestor could for example succeed if I switched from a recent state to an old branch-off, but fail if the old rev was before the branching: