On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:17:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > +...
> > > + } else if (cmp > 0) {
> > > /* path2 does not appear in one */
> > > + score += score_missing(two.entry.mode, two.entry.path);
> > > + update_tree_entry(&two);
> > > + continue;
> > > + } if (oidcmp(one.entry.oid, two.entry.oid)) {
> >
> > As the earlier ones do the "continue at the end of the block", this
> > does not affect the correctness, but I think you either meant "else if"
> > or a fresh "if/else" that is disconnected from the previous if/else if/...
> > chain.
>
> Yes, thanks. I actually started to write it without the "continue" at
> all, and a big "else" that checked the "we have both" case. But I backed
> that out (in favor of a smaller diff), and forgot to add back in the
> "else if".
So here it is fixed, and with a commit message. I'm not happy to omit a
regression test, but I actually couldn't come up with a minimal one that
tickled the problem, because we're playing around with heuristics. So I
compensated by probably over-explaining in the commit message. But
clearly this is not a well-tested code path given the length of time
between introducing and detecting the bug.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] score_trees(): fix iteration over trees with missing entries
In score_trees(), we walk over two sorted trees to find
which entries are missing or have different content between
the two. So if we have two trees with these entries:
one two
--- ---
a a
b c
c d
we'd expect the loop to:
- compare "a" to "a"
- compare "b" to "c"; because these are sorted lists, we
know that the second tree does not have "b"
- compare "c" to "c"
- compare "d" to end-of-list; we know that the first tree
does not have "d"
And prior to d8febde370 (match-trees: simplify score_trees()
using tree_entry(), 2013-03-24) that worked. But after that
commit, we mistakenly increment the tree pointers for every
loop iteration, even when we've processed the entry for only
one side. As a result, we end up doing this:
- compare "a" to "a"
- compare "b" to "c"; we know that we do not have "b", but
we still increment both tree pointers; at this point
we're out of sync and all further comparisons are wrong
- compare "c" to "d" and mistakenly claim that the second
tree does not have "c"
- exit the loop, mistakenly not realizing that the first
tree does not have "d"
So contrary to the claim in d8febde370, we really do need to
manually use update_tree_entry(), because advancing the tree
pointer depends on the entry comparison.
That means we must stop using tree_entry() to access each
entry, since it auto-advances the pointer. Instead:
- we'll use tree_desc.size directly to know if there's
anything left to look at (which is what tree_entry() was
doing under the hood)
- rather than do an extra struct assignment to "e1" and
"e2", we can just access the "entry" field of tree_desc
directly
That makes us a little more intimate with the tree_desc
code, but that's not uncommon for its callers.
There's no regression test here, as it's a little tricky to
trigger this with a minimal example. The user-visible effect
is that the heuristics fail to correlate two trees that
should be. But in a minimal example, there aren't a lot of
other trees to match, so we often end up doing the right
thing anyway.
A real-world example (from the original bug report) is:
-- >8 --
git init repo
cd repo
echo init >file
git add file
git commit -m init
git remote add tig https://github.com/jonas/tig.git
git fetch tig
git merge -s ours --no-commit --allow-unrelated-histories tig-2.3.0
git read-tree --prefix=src/ -u tig-2.3.0
git commit -m 'get upstream tig-2.3.0'
echo update >file
git commit -a -m update
git merge -s subtree tig-2.4.0
-- 8< --
Before this patch, we fail to realize that the tig-2.4.0
content should go into the "src" directory.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
---
match-trees.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/match-trees.c b/match-trees.c
index 4cdeff53e1..37653308d3 100644
--- a/match-trees.c
+++ b/match-trees.c
@@ -83,34 +83,43 @@ static int score_trees(const struct object_id *hash1, const struct object_id *ha
int score = 0;
for (;;) {
- struct name_entry e1, e2;
- int got_entry_from_one = tree_entry(&one, &e1);
- int got_entry_from_two = tree_entry(&two, &e2);
int cmp;
- if (got_entry_from_one && got_entry_from_two)
- cmp = base_name_entries_compare(&e1, &e2);
- else if (got_entry_from_one)
+ if (one.size && two.size)
+ cmp = base_name_entries_compare(&one.entry, &two.entry);
+ else if (one.size)
/* two lacks this entry */
cmp = -1;
- else if (got_entry_from_two)
+ else if (two.size)
/* two has more entries */
cmp = 1;
else
break;
- if (cmp < 0)
+ if (cmp < 0) {
/* path1 does not appear in two */
- score += score_missing(e1.mode, e1.path);
- else if (cmp > 0)
+ score += score_missing(one.entry.mode, one.entry.path);
+ update_tree_entry(&one);
+ } else if (cmp > 0) {
/* path2 does not appear in one */
- score += score_missing(e2.mode, e2.path);
- else if (oidcmp(e1.oid, e2.oid))
- /* they are different */
- score += score_differs(e1.mode, e2.mode, e1.path);
- else
- /* same subtree or blob */
- score += score_matches(e1.mode, e2.mode, e1.path);
+ score += score_missing(two.entry.mode, two.entry.path);
+ update_tree_entry(&two);
+ } else {
+ /* path appears in both */
+ if (oidcmp(one.entry.oid, two.entry.oid)) {
+ /* they are different */
+ score += score_differs(one.entry.mode,
+ two.entry.mode,
+ one.entry.path);
+ } else {
+ /* same subtree or blob */
+ score += score_matches(one.entry.mode,
+ two.entry.mode,
+ one.entry.path);
+ }
+ update_tree_entry(&one);
+ update_tree_entry(&two);
+ }
}
free(one_buf);
free(two_buf);
--
2.18.0.796.g4bfd63b683
