# Incorrect Diff!

2 messages from 2017-06-02 to 2017-06-02. Participants: Pulkit Goyal, Junio C Hamano.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/46095

## Pulkit Goyal, 2017-06-02 04:11

Subject: Incorrect Diff!
Message-ID: <CAJ-kjL-Y+x-ZROnNm+Ray54hwxfkA6K6uxYoUVQpa3NmrzbEMg@mail.gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAJ-kjL-Y%2Bx-ZROnNm%2BRay54hwxfkA6K6uxYoUVQpa3NmrzbEMg%40mail.gmail.com

```
Hey folks!

I was working on a Django project when I got the following diff which
is very much confusing.

The diff is pasted at https://bpaste.net/show/c2cb00728ff0.

As you can see on bpaste that in line number 9,10 I have changed
"class activationview" to "class activateuser", but in line number 14
the diff is again showing me "class activationview". Maybe Git is
trying to be smart here, but the diff is wrong and I was confused.

This is to let you know I faced this problem and to ask if this is
already fixed.

Regards

Pulkit Goyal

```

## Junio C Hamano, 2017-06-02 04:55

Subject: Re: Incorrect Diff!
Message-ID: <xmqqinkfyonc.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqinkfyonc.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-kjL-Y+x-ZROnNm+Ray54hwxfkA6K6uxYoUVQpa3NmrzbEMg@mail.gmail.com>

```
Pulkit Goyal <7895pulkit@gmail.com> writes:

> I was working on a Django project when I got the following diff which
> is very much confusing.
>
> The diff is pasted at https://bpaste.net/show/c2cb00728ff0.
>
> As you can see on bpaste that in line number 9,10 I have changed
> "class activationview" to "class activateuser", but in line number 14
> the diff is again showing me "class activationview". Maybe Git is
> trying to be smart here, but the diff is wrong and I was confused.

I do not think Git is trying to be smart at all.  

The function context lines @@ .. @@ consistently is showing the name
in the preimage of the diff, no?  

The function/class header that appears in the preimage before the
hunk that begins at line 108 is activationview and that is shown
there.  So is the header on the hunk that begins at line 149.

So there is nothing remarkable in this patch as far as I can see.

```
