Aaron Lipman <alipman88@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> diff --git a/bisect.c b/bisect.c
> index a11fdb1473..b495a19192 100644
> --- a/bisect.c
> +++ b/bisect.c
> @@ -460,6 +460,7 @@ static GIT_PATH_FUNC(git_path_bisect_run, "BISECT_RUN")
> static GIT_PATH_FUNC(git_path_bisect_start, "BISECT_START")
> static GIT_PATH_FUNC(git_path_bisect_log, "BISECT_LOG")
> static GIT_PATH_FUNC(git_path_bisect_terms, "BISECT_TERMS")
> +static GIT_PATH_FUNC(git_path_bisect_first_parent, "BISECT_FIRST_PARENT")
> static GIT_PATH_FUNC(git_path_head_name, "head-name")
This is not a new issue, but duplication of the above and the same
set of PATH_FUNC in builtin/bisect-helper.c looks ugly. We may want
to do something about it after this topic is done.
> @@ -981,6 +982,12 @@ void read_bisect_terms(const char **read_bad, const char **read_good)
> fclose(fp);
> }
>
> +int read_first_parent_option(void)
"static int", no? I do not think we need to be able to call this
from anywhere outside this file.
> +{
> + const char *filename = git_path_bisect_first_parent();
> + return !access(filename, F_OK);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * We use the convention that return BISECT_INTERNAL_SUCCESS_1ST_BAD_FOUND (-10) means
> * the bisection process finished successfully.
> @@ -997,7 +1004,7 @@ enum bisect_error bisect_next_all(struct repository *r, const char *prefix, int
> enum bisect_error res = BISECT_OK;
> struct object_id *bisect_rev;
> char *steps_msg;
> - int first_parent_only = 0; /* TODO: pass --first-parent flag from git bisect start */
> + int first_parent_only = read_first_parent_option();
>
> read_bisect_terms(&term_bad, &term_good);
> if (read_bisect_refs())
> @@ -1141,6 +1148,7 @@ int bisect_clean_state(void)
> unlink_or_warn(git_path_bisect_names());
> unlink_or_warn(git_path_bisect_run());
> unlink_or_warn(git_path_bisect_terms());
> + unlink_or_warn(git_path_bisect_first_parent());
> /* Cleanup head-name if it got left by an old version of git-bisect */
> unlink_or_warn(git_path_head_name());
> /*
> diff --git a/bisect.h b/bisect.h
> index a63af0505f..8ee80f5b48 100644
> --- a/bisect.h
> +++ b/bisect.h
> @@ -66,6 +66,8 @@ int estimate_bisect_steps(int all);
>
> void read_bisect_terms(const char **bad, const char **good);
>
> +int read_first_parent_option(void);
> +
So this won't be needed, right?
> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> index ec4996282e..1236f5df1d 100644
> --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> @@ -422,7 +423,7 @@ static int bisect_append_log_quoted(const char **argv)
> }
>
> static int bisect_start(struct bisect_terms *terms, int no_checkout,
> - const char **argv, int argc)
> + int first_parent_only, const char **argv, int argc)
Why do we need to pass this new parameter from cmd_bisect__helper(),
when we are going to parse it out of argv/argc outselves anyway?
I suspect that you would ask the same question to whoever added
no_checkout to this thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if we end up
removing both of these parameters (and parsing of the options inside
cmd_bisect__helper()) after thinking about them, but anyway, let's
read on.
> +# We want to automatically find the merge that
> +# introduced "line" into hello.
'introduced'?
> +test_expect_success \
> + '"git bisect run --first-parent" simple case' \
Let's not revert back to ancient line-folding style. The next test
you can see in the postimage, i.e.
test_expect_success 'title in single quote' '
the first command &&
the second command &&
...
the last command
'
is what we want to mimic.
> + 'echo "#"\!"/bin/sh" > test_script.sh &&
> + echo "grep line hello > /dev/null" >> test_script.sh &&
> + echo "test \$? -ne 0" >> test_script.sh &&
> + chmod +x test_script.sh &&
So, we want to say "bad" if $? is 0, i.e. the file 'hello' has a
string "line" in it and "good" if $? is not 0, i.e. the file 'hello'
does not have such a line?
A few things:
- Use "write_script" to abstract away platform-specific details
such as which $SHELL_PATH to use on "#!" line, and "chmod +x".
- There is no SP between a redirection operator and its target
file.
i.e. Ssomething like this instead of the above four lines:
write_script test_script.sh <<-\EOF
! grep line hello >/dev/null
EOF
> + git bisect start --first-parent &&
> + test_path_is_file ".git/BISECT_FIRST_PARENT" &&
> + git bisect good $HASH4 &&
> + git bisect bad $B_HASH &&
> + git bisect run ./test_script.sh > my_bisect_log.txt &&
Style: no SP between '>' and its target file.
> + grep "$B_HASH is the first bad commit" my_bisect_log.txt &&
> + git bisect reset &&
> + test_path_is_missing ".git/BISECT_FIRST_PARENT"'
The final blame must lie on a commit on the first-parent chain,
which this test tries to ensure, but I wonder if it is also required
that all commits offered to be tested by "git bisect" are on the
first-parent chain, and if so, shouldn't we be make sure each and
every time "test_script" is run, the commit that is at HEAD is on
the first parent chain between the initial good..bad range?
> test_expect_success 'good merge bases when good and bad are siblings' '
> git bisect start "$B_HASH" "$A_HASH" > my_bisect_log.txt &&
> test_i18ngrep "merge base must be tested" my_bisect_log.txt &&
Other than that, overall this seems to be going in the right
direction.
Thanks.
