Uploaded image for project: 'Bitbucket Data Center'
  1. Bitbucket Data Center
  2. BSERV-9614

Merge instructions for Fork Pull Request merge conflicts have .undefined in git repository URL

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Icon: Low Low
    • 5.0.0
    • 4.14.1
    • None
    • None

      Summary

      When trying to merge a forked repository back to the original repository, if a conflict is detected, the instructions given for the merge are incorrect.

      Steps to Reproduce

      1. Fork a repository.
      2. Make changes to one file in the original repository after the fork.
      3. Make changes on the same file on the forked repository in order to create a conflict.
      4. Create a PR to merge back the Fork with the original repository
      5. After the PR gets created a warning panel shows the presence of a conflict and offers more information on how to solve the conflict.

      Expected Results

      The instructions show the correct steps to merge after the conflict is removed.

      Actual Results

      The instructions shown have an incorrect repository URL showed where the expected .git URL is shown as .undefined

      Workaround

      Apart from the repository URL, the instructions are still valid.

      Execute the instructions being sure to replace .undefined with .git

            [BSERV-9614] Merge instructions for Fork Pull Request merge conflicts have .undefined in git repository URL

            I've opened a pull request to backport the fix to our 4.14 line. I'm not sure when/if a 4.14.6 release will happen, but if it does the fix for this will be included.

            Best regards,
            Bryan Turner
            Atlassian Bitbucket

            Bryan Turner (Inactive) added a comment - I've opened a pull request to backport the fix to our 4.14 line. I'm not sure when/if a 4.14.6 release will happen, but if it does the fix for this will be included. Best regards, Bryan Turner Atlassian Bitbucket

            Jeff Grant added a comment -

            As this was reported in 4.14.1, why was it not planned for a subsequent 4.x release?  Companies may not be as quick to jump to 5.x as you would hope so users may be impacted by this for quite a while.

            I'm not suggesting that this update alone should drive a patch release be created, but other items might and this could have been included.

            Jeff Grant added a comment - As this was reported in 4.14.1, why was it not planned for a subsequent 4.x release?  Companies may not be as quick to jump to 5.x as you would hope so users may be impacted by this for quite a while. I'm not suggesting that this update alone should drive a patch release be created, but other items might and this could have been included.

              dcarcasole Daniele Carcasole (Inactive)
              dcarcasole Daniele Carcasole (Inactive)
              Affected customers:
              0 This affects my team
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: