threads / discuss / 55244

Can I convince the diff algorithm to behave better?

Subject: Can I convince the diff algorithm to behave better?

## tl;dr

4 messages between Mar 3, 2021 and Mar 4, 2021.

replies: 3people: 4as markdown or json

Tom Ritter· Mar 3, 2021, 02:03 UTC · lore
(For a specific, nuanced, and personal definition of better...)

I have a frequent behavior that arises when I am copy/pasting chunks of code, typically in tests. Here is an example:

My Original code:
def function():
   line 1
   line 2
   line 3
   line 4
   line 5
   line 6

-------------------------------- I add, after it:

def function2():
   line 1
   line 2
   line 3
   line 4
   line 5
   line 6

-------------------------------- My diff is:

+   line 3
+   line 4
+   line 5
+   line 6
+
+def function2():
+   line 1
+   line 2

-------------------------------- I'd like my diff to be

+
+def function2():
+   line 1
+   line 2
+   line 3
+   line 4
+   line 5
+   line 6

Obviously there's nothing incorrect about the former diff, I just wish it was the latter rather than the former.

I know that git includes four diff algorithms; in my testing patience or histogram exacerbated the problem; and none of them improved upon it. If anyone has suggestions I'd be curious to know if there's anything that could be done...

Thanks, -tom

Thomas Braun· Mar 3, 2021, 12:41 UTC · re: Tom Ritter · lore

Re: Can I convince the diff algorithm to behave better?

On 3/3/2021 3:03 AM, Tom Ritter wrote:
Hi Tom,
Show 49 quoted lines
> (For a specific, nuanced, and personal definition of better...)
> 
> I have a frequent behavior that arises when I am copy/pasting chunks
> of code, typically in tests.  Here is an example:
> 
> My Original code:
> 
> def function():
>    line 1
>    line 2
>    line 3
>    line 4
>    line 5
>    line 6
> 
> --------------------------------
> I add, after it:
> 
> def function2():
>    line 1
>    line 2
>    line 3
>    line 4
>    line 5
>    line 6
> 
> --------------------------------
> My diff is:
> 
> +   line 3
> +   line 4
> +   line 5
> +   line 6
> +
> +def function2():
> +   line 1
> +   line 2
> 
> --------------------------------
> I'd like my diff to be
> 
> +
> +def function2():
> +   line 1
> +   line 2
> +   line 3
> +   line 4
> +   line 5
> +   line 6

I tried to reproduce and got exactly the diff you wanted to have. I need to add a newline after the first "line 4" to get the not-sought-for diff.

Commit:
+++ b/test.py
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+def function():
+    line 1
+    line 2
+    line 3
+    line 4
+    line 5
+    line 6

and then the following change:

--- a/test.py
+++ b/test.py
@@ -3,5 +3,14 @@ def function():
     line 2
     line 3
     line 4
+
+    line 5
+    line 6
+
+def function2():
+    line 1
+    line 2
+    line 3
+    line 4
     line 5
     line 6

I usually play around with --anchored when I want to solve an issue like
that.

The documentation of anchored says

If a line exists in both the source and destination, exists only once,
and starts with this text, this algorithm attempts to prevent it from
appearing as a deletion or addition in the output. It uses the "patience
diff" algorithm internally.

But I can't get it working here as the "exists only once" premise is broken.

Stepping back: It might also make sense to rethink the code as repeating
the same 6 lines in every function might not be the best possible design.

Thomas

[...]
Jonathan Tan· Mar 3, 2021, 23:45 UTC · re: Tom Ritter · lore

Re: Can I convince the diff algorithm to behave better?

> I know that git includes four diff algorithms; in my testing patience
> or histogram exacerbated the problem; and none of them improved upon
> it.  If anyone has suggestions I'd be curious to know if there's
> anything that could be done...

In your particular case, I can't think of anything, but in general, if one of the lines weren't repeated, you might be able to use the --anchored option.

Christian Couder· Mar 4, 2021, 09:52 UTC · re: Tom Ritter · lore

Re: Can I convince the diff algorithm to behave better?

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:37 AM Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> wrote:
[...]
Show 7 quoted lines
> Obviously there's nothing incorrect about the former diff, I just wish
> it was the latter rather than the former.
>
> I know that git includes four diff algorithms; in my testing patience
> or histogram exacerbated the problem; and none of them improved upon
> it.  If anyone has suggestions I'd be curious to know if there's
> anything that could be done...

It's not so easy to implement good diff algorithms. You might want to take a look at the "v2.11 new diff heuristic?" article in:

https://git.github.io/rev_news/2016/12/14/edition-22/

Best, Christian.

← back to recent threads