On 28 May 2018 at 15:25, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tiago Botelho <tiagonbotelho@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > This will enable users to implement bisecting on first parents > > which can be useful for when the commits from a feature branch > > that we want to merge are not always tested. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiago Botelho <tiagonbotelho@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > This patch adds all Junio's suggestions, namely do_find_bisection() being > > broken when assigning q's weight to p if in first parent mode and q being > > not UNINTERESTING and its weight still not being known. > > > > The graph displayed in the unit tests was also changed from being top-bottom > > to be left-right in order to keep it consistent with graphs in other tests. > > > > bisect.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > bisect.h | 3 ++- > > builtin/rev-list.c | 3 +++ > > revision.c | 3 --- > > t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 5 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh b/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh > > index a66140803..774d9a4fd 100755 > > --- a/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh > > +++ b/t/t6002-rev-list-bisect.sh > > @@ -263,4 +263,41 @@ test_expect_success 'rev-parse --bisect can default to good/bad refs' ' > > ... > > +test_output_expect_success "--bisect-all --first-parent" 'git rev-list --bisect-all --first-parent FX ^A' <<EOF > > +$(git rev-parse EX) (dist=1) > > +$(git rev-parse D) (dist=1) > > +$(git rev-parse FX) (dist=0) > > +EOF > > + > > test_done > Running this test number of times gives me spurious errors. Is the > order of these output lines unstable? How do we "sort" these > bisect-all results? If we are not sorting and the output depends on > happenstance, then probably we would need to compare the expected > and actual output after sorting. Or if the output depends on > something under our control (e.g. they are related to topology and > relative commit timestamp), we probably should try to control that > "something" tighter so that we can rely on the order of the lines in > the "expect" file. The reason why the tests were failing was because the above "old" tests did not make use of test_commit which in turn would make the sha of each commit be different and as a result give unexpected outputs at times. If I move them to the top of that file the tests will pass every time, would that be ok? > It also appears that we have "--bisect and --first-parent do not > work well together" in t6000, which also needs to be updated. I > needed the following squashed into this patch to make "make test" > pass. > diff --git a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh > index 969e4e9e52..981198ae6e 100755 > --- a/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh > +++ b/t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh > @@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ test_expect_success 'rev-list can show index objects' ' > test_cmp expect actual > ' > -test_expect_success '--bisect and --first-parent can not be combined' ' > - test_must_fail git rev-list --bisect --first-parent HEAD > +test_expect_success '--bisect and --first-parent can now be combined' ' > + git rev-list --bisect --first-parent HEAD > ' > test_expect_success '--header shows a NUL after each commit' '
