• Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • 2.5
    • 1.8.1, 1.8.3, 1.9.6, 2.0.20.1
    • Git
    • Severity 3 - Minor

      RIght click remote branch - "Pull xxx into current branch" the pull screen "Remote branch to pull" defaults to current branch rather than xxx

            [SRCTREEWIN-4329] Pull from branch not defaulting to correct branch

            liber-takano added a comment - - edited

            Is there an operation method to prevent this bug from occurring?

             

            maybe, use menu, not use pull button ?

            liber-takano added a comment - - edited Is there an operation method to prevent this bug from occurring?   maybe, use menu, not use pull button ?

            Hello! This issue will be fixed in the 2.5.x release.

            What caused this bug:

            • The pull dialog has 2 constructors: one that accepts an additional remote and branch parameter, and one that doesn't.
            • When the constructor is done, it kicks-off an async method that populates the remote and branch field so you don't have to type in that info
            • However, when the selected-remote is changed it also kicks off that same async method, which results in a race-condition that prevents the passed branch and remote from being used.

            The fix:

            • The constructor that didn't accept the optional branch and remote has been removed, so now there's only one constructor which prevents a second call to the async branch population method.

            Mike Corsaro (Inactive) added a comment - Hello! This issue will be fixed in the 2.5.x release. What caused this bug: The pull dialog has 2 constructors: one that accepts an additional remote and branch parameter, and one that doesn't. When the constructor is done, it kicks-off an async method that populates the remote and branch field so you don't have to type in that info However, when the selected-remote is changed it also kicks off that same async method, which results in a race-condition that prevents the passed branch and remote from being used. The fix: The constructor that didn't accept the optional branch and remote has been removed, so now there's only one constructor which prevents a second call to the async branch population method.

            psollberger added a comment - - edited

            As i can see this task was assigned and the priority raised. Finally! Thank you!

            But IMHO the priority is still not high enough.

            psollberger added a comment - - edited As i can see this task was assigned and the priority raised. Finally! Thank you! But IMHO the priority is still not high enough.

            rwyborn added a comment -

            This bug is a nightmare. I have lost track of the number of times I have had to do a hard reset on my local branch because Sourcetree defaulted to pulling a different branch into it.

            rwyborn added a comment - This bug is a nightmare. I have lost track of the number of times I have had to do a hard reset on my local branch because Sourcetree defaulted to pulling a different branch into it.

            I think the priority should be way higher. This is a common pitfall and is consistently leading to errors.

            psollberger added a comment - I think the priority should be way higher. This is a common pitfall and is consistently leading to errors.

            GolezTrol added a comment -

            Still there in 2.3.1.0

            GolezTrol added a comment - Still there in 2.3.1.0

            Nathan Eary added a comment - - edited

            This actually worked as it should in older versions. I don't know what they did that broke it. They should fix it so that it works again, not make the text less misleading.

             

            Why is this low priority? I use the feature multiple times EVERY DAY. I don't think it would be that difficult to fix either. Has anyone tried?

            Nathan Eary added a comment - - edited This actually worked as it should in older versions. I don't know what they did that broke it. They should fix it so that it works again, not make the text less misleading.   Why is this low priority? I use the feature multiple times EVERY DAY. I don't think it would be that difficult to fix either. Has anyone tried?

            Still present in 2.1.2.5, any traction on this yet? On one of other open issues for this bug, somebody suggested at least making the text of the option less misleading, which seems like it would at least be a useful hint to users about what they're going to do.

            One additonal detail, it seems to actually show the correct branch name for a moment, so it almost seems like the selected index of the drop down is being erroneously changed after the box loads.

            Matthew Recchia added a comment - Still present in 2.1.2.5, any traction on this yet? On one of other open issues for this bug, somebody suggested at least making the text of the option less misleading, which seems like it would at least be a useful hint to users about what they're going to do. One additonal detail, it seems to actually show the correct branch name for a moment, so it almost seems like the selected index of the drop down is being erroneously changed after the box loads.

            Are there any updates on this? Still an issue in 1.10, this dialog option in its current state is extremely misleading and can lead to errors.

            Niko Konstantakos added a comment - Are there any updates on this? Still an issue in 1.10, this dialog option in its current state is extremely misleading and can lead to errors.

            +1 to get this fixed ASAP. My team and I use this feature multiple times each day. It has caused false positives that the latest version we are working on has been merged into our local branches. This is annoying and should be an easy fix.

            Nathan Eary added a comment - +1 to get this fixed ASAP. My team and I use this feature multiple times each day. It has caused false positives that the latest version we are working on has been merged into our local branches. This is annoying and should be an easy fix.

              mcorsaro Mike Corsaro (Inactive)
              2302b1b4ec28 alan crocker
              Affected customers:
              20 This affects my team
              Watchers:
              22 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: