Sorry for not looking at it yet - I usually just watch merge proposals rather than bug reports.
It seems you make assumptions of the local name based on the name the file has remotely (upstream-url). This isn't necessarily correct, in some cases the file gets renamed from what it is upstream.
Sorry for not looking at it yet - I usually just watch merge proposals rather than bug reports.
It seems you make assumptions of the local name based on the name the file has remotely (upstream-url). This isn't necessarily correct, in some cases the file gets renamed from what it is upstream.
Can you also add a test for this new behaviour?