threads / patch / 63215

patchrevision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

Subject: [PATCH] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

## tl;dr

9 messages between Mar 30, 2025 and Apr 11, 2025. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 8people: 4as markdown or json

Matt Hunter· Mar 30, 2025, 05:49 UTC · lore

This is a similar fix as 023756f4eb (revision walker: --cherry-pick is a limited operation), but for the --left-only and --right-only options.

When computing a symmetric difference between two unrelated histories, no suitable merge base exists, and so no boundary commit is flagged as UNINTERESTING. Previously, we relied on the presence of such boundary to trigger limiting and thus consideration of either "revs->left_only" or "revs->right_only".

A number of other entries in the option parser have started including overrides for "revs->limited = 1". Do the same for these options.

Signed-off-by: Matt Hunter <m@lfurio.us>
---
Patch applies to the current maint branch (git v2.49.0).

I made a best guess at what the most logical home for this test case should be, so please let me know if somewhere else is preferred. All tests pass when this is cherry-picked to seen. There is only a minor conflict, as a few different tests have appeared in this same spot.

 revision.c               |  2 ++
 t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh | 12 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
Show changes to 2 files +14 −0

revision.c, t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh

diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index c4390f0938..e045445bc3 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -2488,10 +2488,12 @@ static int handle_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, int argc, const char **arg
 			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"),
 			    "--left-only", "--right-only/--cherry");
 		revs->left_only = 1;
+		revs->limited = 1;
 	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--right-only")) {
 		if (revs->left_only)
 			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--right-only", "--left-only");
 		revs->right_only = 1;
+		revs->limited = 1;
 	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--cherry")) {
 		if (revs->left_only)
 			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--cherry", "--left-only");
diff --git a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
index 6289a2e8b0..58f1f746e0 100755
--- a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
+++ b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
@@ -182,4 +182,16 @@ test_expect_success 'rev-list --unpacked' '
 	test_cmp expect actual
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'rev-list one-sided unrelated symmetric diff' '
+	test_tick &&
+	git commit --allow-empty -m xyz &&
+	git branch cmp &&
+	git rebase --force-rebase --root &&
+
+	git rev-list --left-only  HEAD...cmp >head &&
+	git rev-list --right-only HEAD...cmp >cmp  &&
+
+	test $(comm -12 <(sort head) <(sort cmp) | wc -l) = "0"
+'
+
 test_done

base-commit: 683c54c999c301c2cd6f715c411407c413b1d84e
-- 
2.49.0
Johannes Sixt· Mar 30, 2025, 08:31 UTC · re: Matt Hunter · lore

Re: [PATCH] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

Am 30.03.25 um 07:49 schrieb Matt Hunter:
> +	test $(comm -12 <(sort head) <(sort cmp) | wc -l) = "0"
Process substitution does not work on Windows. Please use temporary files.
-- Hannes
Junio C Hamano· Apr 1, 2025, 09:56 UTC · re: Johannes Sixt · lore

Re: [PATCH] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:
> Am 30.03.25 um 07:49 schrieb Matt Hunter:
>> +	test $(comm -12 <(sort head) <(sort cmp) | wc -l) = "0"
>
> Process substitution does not work on Windows. Please use temporary files.

Also it is not portable across POSIX compilant shells (IIRC it is a bash-ism).

Phillip Wood· Mar 30, 2025, 10:11 UTC · re: Matt Hunter · lore

Re: [PATCH] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

Hi Matt
On 30/03/2025 06:49, Matt Hunter wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> +test_expect_success 'rev-list one-sided unrelated symmetric diff' '
> +	test_tick &&
> +	git commit --allow-empty -m xyz &&
> +	git branch cmp &&
> +	git rebase --force-rebase --root &&
> +
> +	git rev-list --left-only  HEAD...cmp >head &&
> +	git rev-list --right-only HEAD...cmp >cmp  &&
> +
> +	test $(comm -12 <(sort head) <(sort cmp) | wc -l) = "0"

Thank you for adding a test. We have a helper function test_line_count which provides a helpful debugging message if the comparison fails. Using that and avoiding process substitutions we'd write

	sort head >sorted_head &&
	sort cmp >sorted_cmp &&
	comm -12 sorted_head sorted_cmp >actual &&
	test_line_count = 0 actual
Thanks
Phillip
> +
>   test_done
> 
> base-commit: 683c54c999c301c2cd6f715c411407c413b1d84e
Matt Hunter· Mar 30, 2025, 10:54 UTC · re: Phillip Wood · lore

Re: [PATCH] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

On Sun Mar 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM EDT, Phillip Wood wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Thank you for adding a test. We have a helper function test_line_count 
> which provides a helpful debugging message if the comparison fails. 
> Using that and avoiding process substitutions we'd write
>
> 	sort head >sorted_head &&
> 	sort cmp >sorted_cmp &&
> 	comm -12 sorted_head sorted_cmp >actual &&
> 	test_line_count = 0 actual

Thanks for that helper tip. I was just about to send a v2 when your message came in, so I'm getting that incorporated now.

By the way, I had originally wanted to write test assertions that checked the actual number of commit ids returned from each of the two calls to rev-list - something like:

    git rev-list --X-only HEAD...cmp >file &&
    test_line_count = N file

But since I'm not very familiar with this test harness yet, I couldn't actually figure the correct value for N. It's not 1 (the commit made in my test body), and it's not 2 (that commit, plus the one from the setup case at the top of the file). Any appropriate higher value wasn't obvious.

So I switched to what you saw in my v1. Maybe this "no commit ids in common" test is actually the stronger assertion?

phillip.wood123@gmail.com· Apr 2, 2025, 13:12 UTC · re: Matt Hunter · lore

Re: [PATCH] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

Hi Matt
On 30/03/2025 11:54, Matt Hunter wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> On Sun Mar 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM EDT, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> Thank you for adding a test. We have a helper function test_line_count
>> which provides a helpful debugging message if the comparison fails.
>> Using that and avoiding process substitutions we'd write
>>
>> 	sort head >sorted_head &&
>> 	sort cmp >sorted_cmp &&
>> 	comm -12 sorted_head sorted_cmp >actual &&
>> 	test_line_count = 0 actual
> Thanks for that helper tip.  I was just about to send a v2 when your
> message came in, so I'm getting that incorporated now.
> 
> By the way, I had originally wanted to write test assertions that
> checked the actual number of commit ids returned from each of the two
> calls to rev-list - something like:
> 
>      git rev-list --X-only HEAD...cmp >file &&
>      test_line_count = N file
> 
> But since I'm not very familiar with this test harness yet, I couldn't
> actually figure the correct value for N.  It's not 1 (the commit made in
> my test body), and it's not 2 (that commit, plus the one from the setup
> case at the top of the file).  Any appropriate higher value wasn't
> obvious.

Each test in a given file runs in the same repository (this is a performance optimization) so the number of commits will depend on what the previous tests have done. Usually there is a setup test at the start of the file which creates some commits with tags. Individual tests can then use those tags to establish a known state.

Best Wishes
Phillip
> So I switched to what you saw in my v1.  Maybe this "no commit ids in
> common" test is actually the stronger assertion?
Matt Hunter· Apr 4, 2025, 05:13 UTC · re: phillip.wood123@gmail.com · lore

Re: [PATCH] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

On Wed Apr 2, 2025 at 9:12 AM EDT, phillip.wood123 wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Each test in a given file runs in the same repository (this is a 
> performance optimization) so the number of commits will depend on what 
> the previous tests have done. Usually there is a setup test at the start 
> of the file which creates some commits with tags. Individual tests can 
> then use those tags to establish a known state.

Ok - that makes sense. And that being the case, I think I stand by the test in v2 of my patch.

Thanks
Matt Hunter· Mar 30, 2025, 11:24 UTC · re: Matt Hunter · lore

[PATCH v2] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

This is a similar fix as 023756f4eb (revision walker: --cherry-pick is a limited operation), but for the --left-only and --right-only options.

When computing a symmetric difference between two unrelated histories, no suitable merge base exists, and so no boundary commit is flagged as UNINTERESTING. Previously, we relied on the presence of such boundary to trigger limiting and thus consideration of either "revs->left_only" or "revs->right_only".

A number of other entries in the option parser have started including overrides for "revs->limited = 1". Do the same for these options.

Signed-off-by: Matt Hunter <m@lfurio.us>
---
Range-diff against v1:
1:  1982f14d70 ! 1:  4f5b264b26 revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories
    @@ t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh: test_expect_success 'rev-list --unpacked' '
     +	git rev-list --left-only  HEAD...cmp >head &&
     +	git rev-list --right-only HEAD...cmp >cmp  &&
     +
    -+	test $(comm -12 <(sort head) <(sort cmp) | wc -l) = "0"
    ++	sort head >head.sorted &&
    ++	sort cmp >cmp.sorted &&
    ++	comm -12 head.sorted cmp.sorted >actual &&
    ++	test_line_count = 0 actual
     +'
     +
      test_done
base-commit: 683c54c999c301c2cd6f715c411407c413b1d84e
 revision.c               |  2 ++
 t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh | 15 +++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
Show changes to 2 files +17 −0

revision.c, t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh

diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index c4390f0938..e045445bc3 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -2488,10 +2488,12 @@ static int handle_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, int argc, const char **arg
 			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"),
 			    "--left-only", "--right-only/--cherry");
 		revs->left_only = 1;
+		revs->limited = 1;
 	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--right-only")) {
 		if (revs->left_only)
 			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--right-only", "--left-only");
 		revs->right_only = 1;
+		revs->limited = 1;
 	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--cherry")) {
 		if (revs->left_only)
 			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--cherry", "--left-only");
diff --git a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
index 6289a2e8b0..d338f7ecb4 100755
--- a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
+++ b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
@@ -182,4 +182,19 @@ test_expect_success 'rev-list --unpacked' '
 	test_cmp expect actual
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'rev-list one-sided unrelated symmetric diff' '
+	test_tick &&
+	git commit --allow-empty -m xyz &&
+	git branch cmp &&
+	git rebase --force-rebase --root &&
+
+	git rev-list --left-only  HEAD...cmp >head &&
+	git rev-list --right-only HEAD...cmp >cmp  &&
+
+	sort head >head.sorted &&
+	sort cmp >cmp.sorted &&
+	comm -12 head.sorted cmp.sorted >actual &&
+	test_line_count = 0 actual
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.49.0
Junio C Hamano· Apr 11, 2025, 14:41 UTC · re: Matt Hunter · lore

Re: [PATCH v2] revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories

Matt Hunter <m@lfurio.us> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> This is a similar fix as 023756f4eb (revision walker: --cherry-pick is a
> limited operation), but for the --left-only and --right-only options.
>
> When computing a symmetric difference between two unrelated histories,
> no suitable merge base exists, and so no boundary commit is flagged as
> UNINTERESTING.  Previously, we relied on the presence of such boundary
> to trigger limiting and thus consideration of either "revs->left_only"
> or "revs->right_only".
>
> A number of other entries in the option parser have started including
> overrides for "revs->limited = 1".  Do the same for these options.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Hunter <m@lfurio.us>
> ---

Thanks. As far as I can see, the whole patch looks sensible, including its rewritten tests.

Let me mark the topic for 'next'.
Thanks, all.
Show 62 quoted lines
> Range-diff against v1:
> 1:  1982f14d70 ! 1:  4f5b264b26 revision: fix --left/right-only use with unrelated histories
>     @@ t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh: test_expect_success 'rev-list --unpacked' '
>      +	git rev-list --left-only  HEAD...cmp >head &&
>      +	git rev-list --right-only HEAD...cmp >cmp  &&
>      +
>     -+	test $(comm -12 <(sort head) <(sort cmp) | wc -l) = "0"
>     ++	sort head >head.sorted &&
>     ++	sort cmp >cmp.sorted &&
>     ++	comm -12 head.sorted cmp.sorted >actual &&
>     ++	test_line_count = 0 actual
>      +'
>      +
>       test_done
>
> base-commit: 683c54c999c301c2cd6f715c411407c413b1d84e
>
>  revision.c               |  2 ++
>  t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index c4390f0938..e045445bc3 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -2488,10 +2488,12 @@ static int handle_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, int argc, const char **arg
>  			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"),
>  			    "--left-only", "--right-only/--cherry");
>  		revs->left_only = 1;
> +		revs->limited = 1;
>  	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--right-only")) {
>  		if (revs->left_only)
>  			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--right-only", "--left-only");
>  		revs->right_only = 1;
> +		revs->limited = 1;
>  	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--cherry")) {
>  		if (revs->left_only)
>  			die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--cherry", "--left-only");
> diff --git a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
> index 6289a2e8b0..d338f7ecb4 100755
> --- a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
> +++ b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh
> @@ -182,4 +182,19 @@ test_expect_success 'rev-list --unpacked' '
>  	test_cmp expect actual
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'rev-list one-sided unrelated symmetric diff' '
> +	test_tick &&
> +	git commit --allow-empty -m xyz &&
> +	git branch cmp &&
> +	git rebase --force-rebase --root &&
> +
> +	git rev-list --left-only  HEAD...cmp >head &&
> +	git rev-list --right-only HEAD...cmp >cmp  &&
> +
> +	sort head >head.sorted &&
> +	sort cmp >cmp.sorted &&
> +	comm -12 head.sorted cmp.sorted >actual &&
> +	test_line_count = 0 actual
> +'
> +
>  test_done

← back to recent threads