From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:10:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] builtin add -p: fix hunk splitting
Message-ID: <649cfa82-5fbf-71f3-244b-bc37404c40ab@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2201220938360.2121@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Hi Dscho

On 22/01/2022 09:05, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
> 
> first of all: thank you for these patches. I read over them and they have
> my ACK.

Thanks

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Phillip Wood wrote:
> 
>> On 12/01/2022 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I want to go with your extra changes. I've left some
>>>> comments on them below
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -488,12 +499,12 @@ static int parse_diff(struct add_p_state *s, const
>>>>> struct pathspec *ps)
>>>>>     else if (starts_with(p, "@@ ") ||
>>>>>       (hunk == &file_diff->head &&
>>>>>    		  (skip_prefix(p, "deleted file", &deleted)))) {
>>>>> -		if (marker == '-' || marker == '+')
>>>>> -			/*
>>>>> -			 * Should not happen; previous hunk did not end
>>>>> -			 * in a context line? Handle it anyway.
>>>>> -			 */
>>>>> +			hunk->splittable_into++;
>>>>> +		/*
>>>>> +		 * Should not increment "splittable_into";
>>>>> +		 * previous hunk did not end in a context
>>>>> +		 * line? Handle it anyway.
>>>>> +		 */
>>>>> +		complete_file(marker, &hunk->splittable_into);
>>>>>       ALLOC_GROW_BY(file_diff->hunk, file_diff->hunk_nr, 1,
>>>>>          file_diff->hunk_alloc);
>>>>
>>>> I deliberately left this alone as I think we should probably make
>>>> this BUG() out instead of silently accepting an invalid diff.
> 
> FWIW this was overzealous defensive programming on my part. More on that
> below.
> 
>>> As we are reading our own output, I agree that such a data error is
>>> a BUG().
> 
> Indeed. I was less worried about the output format changing, and more
> concerned with bugs in my parser ;-)
> 
> Although, having said that, I had meant to verify that `git add -p` cannot
> be asked to produce and consume diffs with `-U0` when I wrote that
> comment. Now I did that, and I am now confident that there is no way to ask
> `git add -p` to generate and use context line-free diffs: we neither add
> `-U<n>` in https://github.com/git/git/blob/v2.34.1/add-patch.c#L398-L417
> nor do we call the user-facing `git diff` command that would interpret
> `diff.context`, but instead we use `git diff-index` and `git diff-files`
> (which ignore that config setting).

I did think about zero context diffs but realized that they can never be 
split so we don't need to worry about incrementing hunk->splittable_into 
in that case. It does mean that hunk->splittable_into will be zero in 
the -U0 case rather than one but I dont think that matters as we only 
care if it is >2 for splitting.

Best Wishes

Phillip

>>> In any case, a helper to see if the file ended without post-context
>>> is one thing, and a helper that specify what happens after we are
>>> done with a single file, before we move on top the next file or
>>> after processing the last file, is another thing.  The latter may be
>>> able to make use of the former, but the latter may want to do more
>>> than that in the future.
> 
> If you are concerned about the name of the function: maybe a better name
> would be `maybe_increment_splittable_hunk_count(marker)`.
> 
>>>
>>> As complete_file() is about finalizing the processing we have done
>>> to the current file, it should be used for that purpose, and nothing
>>> else, I think the hunk I see at
>>> https://github.com/git/git/commit/c082176f8c5a1fc1c8b2a93991ca28fd63aae73a
>>> (reproduced below) is simply a nonsense.
>>>
>>> Stepping back a bit, though, is this helper really finalizing the
>>> current file, or is it finalizing the current hunk?  If it were the
>>> latter, then its use in the hunk I called "nonsense" above actually
>>> makes perfect sense.
>>
>> Even if the helper is finalizing the current hunk then I think that "nonsense"
>> hunk would still wrong as it would be calling finalize_hunk() on _every_
>> context line in the hunk rather than just being called once to finalize the
>> hunk. We could call the function something like update_splittable() but then
>> we'd need to explain why we were calling that function at the start of a diff
>> and at the end of the loop.
> 
> Right. The point of this check is to see whether we missed counting a
> splittable hunk. Then it makes more sense to call it at the beginning of a
> file, at the end of a file _and_ at a context line.
> 
> Having said all that, I am really fine with what landed in `next`.
> 
> Thank you,
> Dscho