Re: [PATCH] range-diff: show submodule changes irrespective of diff.submodule
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 30, 2022, 13:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <220530.867d632kso.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <pull.1244.git.1653916145441.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 30 2022, Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget wrote:
Show 43 quoted lines
> From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
>
> After generating diffs for each range to be compared using a 'git log'
> invocation, range-diff.c::read_patches looks for the "diff --git" header
> in those diffs to recognize the beginning of a new change.
>
> In a project with submodules, and with 'diff.submodule=log' set in the
> config, this header is missing for the diff of a changed submodule, so
> any submodule changes are quietly ignored in the range-diff.
>
> When 'diff.submodule=diff' is set in the config, the "diff --git" header
> is also missing for the submodule itself, but is shown for submodule
> content changes, which can easily confuse 'git range-diff' and lead to
> errors such as:
>
> error: git apply: bad git-diff - inconsistent old filename on line 1
> error: could not parse git header 'diff --git path/to/submodule/and/some/file/within
> '
> error: could not parse log for '@{u}..@{1}'
>
> Force the submodule diff format to its default ("short") when invoking
> 'git log' to generate the patches for each range, such that submodule
> changes are always shown.
>
> Note that the test must use '--creation-factor=100' to force the second
> commit in the range not to be considered a complete rewrite.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
> ---
> range-diff: show submodule changes irrespective of diff.submodule
>
> This fixes a bug that I reported last summer [1].
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/e469038c-d78c-cd4b-0214-7094746b9281@gmail.com/
>
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1244%2Fphil-blain%2Frange-diff-submodule-diff-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1244/phil-blain/range-diff-submodule-diff-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1244
>
> range-diff.c | 2 +-
> t/t3206-range-diff.sh | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)Thanks for picking this up again, and nice to have a test on this iteration!
Show 65 quoted lines
> diff --git a/range-diff.c b/range-diff.c > index b72eb9fdbee..068bf214544 100644 > --- a/range-diff.c > +++ b/range-diff.c > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int read_patches(const char *range, struct string_list *list, > > strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "log", "--no-color", "-p", "--no-merges", > "--reverse", "--date-order", "--decorate=no", > - "--no-prefix", > + "--no-prefix", "--submodule=short", > /* > * Choose indicators that are not used anywhere > * else in diffs, but still look reasonable > diff --git a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > index e30bc48a290..ac848c42536 100755 > --- a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > +++ b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > @@ -772,4 +772,48 @@ test_expect_success '--left-only/--right-only' ' > test_cmp expect actual > ' > > +test_expect_success 'submodule changes are shown irrespective of diff.submodule' ' > + git init sub-repo && > + test_commit -C sub-repo sub-first && > + sub_oid1=$(git -C sub-repo rev-parse HEAD) && > + test_commit -C sub-repo sub-second && > + sub_oid2=$(git -C sub-repo rev-parse HEAD) && > + test_commit -C sub-repo sub-third && > + sub_oid3=$(git -C sub-repo rev-parse HEAD) && > + > + git checkout -b main-sub topic && > + git submodule add ./sub-repo sub && > + git -C sub checkout --detach sub-first && > + git add sub && > + git commit -m "add sub" && > + sup_oid1=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD) && > + git checkout -b topic-sub && > + git -C sub checkout sub-second && > + git add sub && > + git commit -m "change sub" && > + sup_oid2=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD) && > + git checkout -b modified-sub main-sub && > + git -C sub checkout sub-third && > + git add sub && > + git commit -m "change sub" && > + sup_oid3=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD) && > + > + test_config diff.submodule log && > + git range-diff --creation-factor=100 topic topic-sub modified-sub >actual && > + cat >expect <<-EOF && > + 1: $sup_oid1 = 1: $sup_oid1 add sub > + 2: $sup_oid2 ! 2: $sup_oid3 change sub > + @@ Commit message > + ## sub ## > + @@ > + -Subproject commit $sub_oid1 > + -+Subproject commit $sub_oid2 > + ++Subproject commit $sub_oid3 > + EOF > + test_cmp expect actual && > + test_config diff.submodule diff && > + git range-diff --creation-factor=100 topic topic-sub modified-sub >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual > +' > +
I'd find this much easier to follow if this were a two-part where we do most of this test code in the 1st commit, and assert the current (failing) behavior with a test_expect_failure.
Then this commit would narrowly be the bugfix itself.
I also see that the --creation-factor=100 isn't necessary and seems somewhat orthagonal, i.e. we'd like to test this *without* that option and see how we behave, i.e. we'll emit the "full replacement".
Why not compare the output without --creation-factor=100, and then just have another --creation-factor=100 test to show what we emit if we "look into" those commits and diff their contents?