# [PATCH] blame - fix some issues identified by coverage report. 3 messages from 2019-06-01 to 2019-06-03. Participants: michael@platin.gs, Barret Rhoden, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/51220 ## michael@platin.gs, 2019-06-01 21:09 Subject: [PATCH] blame - fix some issues identified by coverage report. Message-ID: <20190601210925.15339-1-michael@platin.gs> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20190601210925.15339-1-michael%40platin.gs ``` From: Michael Platings Thanks to Derrick Stolee for highlighting missing coverage. In the case of "certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED" this was defeating an optimization that preserved results of calculations between line-matching passes. This had caused other code to never be executed - that code is now executed and only discards calculation results that are no longer valid. In the case of "max_search_distance_b = 0" this was never executed because another statement was added earlier in the function to return early in such a case. Signed-off-by: Michael Platings --- blame.c | 12 ++---------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/blame.c b/blame.c index c059063688..2b47c942db 100644 --- a/blame.c +++ b/blame.c @@ -825,10 +825,6 @@ static void fuzzy_find_matching_lines_recurse( *get_similarity(similarities, most_certain_line_a - start_a, i, closest_local_line_a, max_search_distance_a) = -1; - - if (certainties[i] >= 0) { - certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED; - } } /* More invalidating of results that may be affected by the choice of @@ -947,12 +943,8 @@ static int *fuzzy_find_matching_lines(struct blame_origin *parent, if (max_search_distance_a >= length_a) max_search_distance_a = length_a ? length_a - 1 : 0; - if (length_a == 0) { - max_search_distance_b = 0; - } else { - max_search_distance_b = ((2 * max_search_distance_a + 1) * - length_b - 1) / length_a; - } + max_search_distance_b = ((2 * max_search_distance_a + 1) * + length_b - 1) / length_a; result = xcalloc(sizeof(int), length_b); second_best_result = xcalloc(sizeof(int), length_b); -- 2.21.0 ``` ## Barret Rhoden, 2019-06-03 15:26 Subject: Re: [PATCH] blame - fix some issues identified by coverage report. Message-ID: <10bbee35-4df1-1a6d-8301-6866c7445e2d@google.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/10bbee35-4df1-1a6d-8301-6866c7445e2d%40google.com In-Reply-To: <20190601210925.15339-1-michael@platin.gs> ``` Hi Michael - On 6/1/19 5:09 PM, michael@platin.gs wrote: > From: Michael Platings > > Thanks to Derrick Stolee for highlighting missing coverage. > > In the case of "certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED" this was > defeating an optimization that preserved results of calculations > between line-matching passes. This had caused other code to never > be executed - that code is now executed and only discards calculation > results that are no longer valid. > > In the case of "max_search_distance_b = 0" this was never executed > because another statement was added earlier in the function to return > early in such a case. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Platings If it's OK with you, I can squash this into your existing patch in the blame-ignore patch set. Thanks, Barret ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2019-06-03 18:08 Subject: Re: [PATCH] blame - fix some issues identified by coverage report. Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqk1e2v8xr.fsf%40gitster-ct.c.googlers.com In-Reply-To: <10bbee35-4df1-1a6d-8301-6866c7445e2d@google.com> ``` Barret Rhoden writes: > Hi Michael - > > On 6/1/19 5:09 PM, michael@platin.gs wrote: >> From: Michael Platings >> >> Thanks to Derrick Stolee for highlighting missing coverage. >> >> In the case of "certainties[i] = CERTAINTY_NOT_CALCULATED" this was >> defeating an optimization that preserved results of calculations >> between line-matching passes. This had caused other code to never >> be executed - that code is now executed and only discards calculation >> results that are no longer valid. >> >> In the case of "max_search_distance_b = 0" this was never executed >> because another statement was added earlier in the function to return >> early in such a case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Platings > > If it's OK with you, I can squash this into your existing patch in the > blame-ignore patch set. Thanks, both. That'd make my life easier ;-) by allowing me to ignore this patch for now, knowing you two are on top of the issue. ```