Re: [PATCH 9/9] add -i: verify in the tests that colors can be overridden

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 15, 2020, 23:35 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2011160027480.18437@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <20201112182925.GA701197@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi Peff,

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, Jeff King wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 03:04:01PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > Hmm. Right, I knew about that weirdness. But I assumed that the builtin
> > > add-interactive was doing the diffs in-core. Otherwise, why would we
> > > have seen the failure to load diff.color.frag in the first place?
> >
> > Oh, that's easy to explain: as you can verify reading
> > https://github.com/git/git/blob/e31aba42fb12/git-add--interactive.perl#L885-L898
> > the Perl version of `git add -p` insists on (re-)constructing the hunk
> > headers manually, and obviously it needs to color them manually, too. And
> > https://github.com/git/git/blob/e31aba42fb12/add-patch.c#L649-L672 shows
> > that the built-in version of `git add -p` slavishly follows that practice.
>
> But that is only when we split hunks (your link to the perl script is in
> split_hunks()). I agree we must color manually there when creating our
> own hunk header. But outside of that and patch-editing, the perl script
> does not otherwise recolor or rewrite (nor even really parse beyond
> line-splitting) what it gets from the colorized version.
>
> Whereas add-patch parses the colors off of the version and then
> re-colors every hunk header. Which seems doubly weird to me. Even if we
> were going to re-color every hunk (e.g., because we don't want to store
> the original hunk line, but instead a parsed version of it), why bother
> parsing the color version at all, and not just the machine-readable
> version?

Let's continue on this distraction for a bit before I go back to fixing the patch series, which actually tries to fix a _different_ concern.

The reason why `add-patch.c` "parses the colors off" is that we want to show the rest of the hunk header, in color, even after splitting hunks (this will only be shown for the first hunk, of course).

But given that `git add -p` is somewhat of a fringe use, and using `diffFilter` is _even_ more fringe, I do not really want to spend any further time on this tangent.

Show 41 quoted lines

> > > The answer seems to be that render_hunk() always _replaces_ the colors
> > > we got from running the external diff. Whereas the perl version only
> > > applied coloring when reading back in the results of an edit operation
> > > (and likewise used the frag color when generating a split hunk header).
> >
> > No, the Perl version also insists on applying `fraginfo_color`, see
> > https://github.com/git/git/blob/e31aba42fb12/git-add--interactive.perl#L885-L898
>
> Only when we split. Try this to give different colors between the
> interactive script and diff:
>
> diff --git a/git-add--interactive.perl b/git-add--interactive.perl
> index e713fe3d02..862a21ff1f 100755
> --- a/git-add--interactive.perl
> +++ b/git-add--interactive.perl
> @@ -28,8 +28,9 @@
>  my $diff_use_color = $repo->get_colorbool('color.diff');
>  my ($fraginfo_color) =
>  	$diff_use_color ? (
> -		$repo->get_color('color.diff.frag', 'cyan'),
> +		$repo->get_color('color.diff.nonsense', 'yellow'),
>  	) : ();
> +# noop to create split hunk
>  my ($diff_plain_color) =
>  	$diff_use_color ? (
>  		$repo->get_color('color.diff.plain', ''),
>
> Running "git add -p" does not result in yellow hunk headers. But issuing
> a split command does.
>
> The distinction is mostly academic, because diff-tree and the
> interactive patch code should be using the same colors, so the result
> should look the same. It could matter if the diff-filter chooses
> different colors, though then the split headers will not match the
> originals in style. We _could_ run the newly created hunk header
> individually through the diff-filter, though I'm not sure how various
> filters would handle that.
>
> That's true of the perl version as well as the builtin one, but I think
> the builtin one's insistence on parsing the colored output is taking us
> in the wrong direction to eventually fix that.

My thinking back then was: what if _I_ want to use a diffFilter? For what would I use it? Probably to emphasize certain hunk headers more, by adding more color to the part after the line range.

Anyway. I stand by what I said above: I do not want to spend any further time on this tangent, at least not right now. There are more pressing challenges waiting for me, and I expect those other challenge to have a much bigger "return on investment".

Ciao, Dscho

Show 21 quoted lines

> > > I'm not sure that what the builtin version is doing is wrong, but it
> > > seems like it's putting a lot of extra effort into parsing colors off of
> > > the colorized version. Whereas the perl version just assumes the lines
> > > match up. I do wonder if there are corner cases we might hit around
> > > filters here, though. The lines we get from a filter might bear no
> > > resemblance at all to diff lines. The only thing we require in the perl
> > > version is that they have correspond 1-to-1 with the unfiltered diff
> > > lines in meaning.
> >
> > They do have to correspond 1-to-1 because the assumption is that the
> > individual lines will then correspond one-to-one, too. This does not need
> > to be true, of course, but then the filter is probably less useful than
> > the user wants it to be.
>
> Right, I'm not disputing the 1-to-1 thing (I was after all the one who
> implemented interactive.diffilter, and added the "complain if the counts
> don't line up" check). But in the perl script they only need to
> correspond _semantically_, not syntactically.
>
> -Peff
>