Re: [PATCH] add -p: fix counting empty context lines in edited patches
- From
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
- Date
- Jun 1, 2018, 20:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPig+cSSj2ETXfk8FYUc+=tE6bfoRuqF5Ld4kOgE4+DDpfL+BA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20180601174644.13055-1-phillip.wood@talktalk.net>
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net> wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> recount_edited_hunk() introduced in commit 2b8ea7f3c7 ("add -p:
> calculate offset delta for edited patches", 2018-03-05) required all
> context lines to start with a space, empty lines are not counted. This
> was intended to avoid any recounting problems if the user had
> introduced empty lines at the end when editing the patch. However this
> introduced a regression into 'git add -p' as it seems it is common for
> editors to strip the trailing whitespace from empty context lines when
> patches are edited thereby introducing empty lines that should be
> counted. 'git apply' knows how to deal with such empty lines and POSIX
> states that whether or not there is an space on an empty context line
> is implementation defined [1].
>
> Fix the regression by counting lines consist solely of a newline ass/consist/&ing/ --or-- s/consist/that &/
Show 10 quoted lines
> well as lines starting with a space as context lines and add a test to
> prevent future regressions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
> ---
> git-add--interactive.perl | 2 +-
> diff --git a/git-add--interactive.perl b/git-add--interactive.perl
> @@ -1047,7 +1047,7 @@ sub recount_edited_hunk {
> - } elsif ($mode eq ' ') {
> + } elsif ($mode eq ' ' or $_ eq "\n") {Based upon a very cursory read of parts of git-add-interactive.perl, do I understand correctly that we don't have to worry about $_ ever being "\r\n" on Windows?
Show 28 quoted lines
> diff --git a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh > @@ -175,6 +175,49 @@ test_expect_success 'real edit works' ' > +test_expect_success 'setup file' ' > + test_write_lines a "" b "" c >file && > + git add file && > + test_write_lines a "" d "" c >file > +' > + > +test_expect_success 'setup patch' ' > + SP=" " && > + NULL="" && > + cat >patch <<-EOF > + [...] > + EOF > +' > + > +test_expect_success 'setup expected' ' > + cat >expected <<-EOF > + [...] > + EOF > +' > + > +test_expect_success 'edit can strip spaces from empty context lines' ' > + test_write_lines e n q | git add -p 2>error && > + test_must_be_empty error && > + git diff >output && > + diff_cmp expected output > +'
I would have expected all the setup work to be contained directly in the sole test which needs it rather than spread over three tests (two of which are composed of a single command). Not a big deal, and not worth a re-roll.