On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:35:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > I think the only conceivable case is that in the middle of a single > > > block of text in an ancient version, another block of lines gets > > > inserted during the evolution of the file, but in the end these > > > intermediate edits all go away and the same original text remains. > > > > > > In such a case, without coalescing, we would not treat the original > > > single block of text as a single unit. > > > > Yeah, that makes sense, and it should be possible to construct a case > > based on that. I started to add a test for this, and it turns out we already had one! It just wasn't checking the output as carefully as it could. :) So here's a series which actually checks that blame_coalesce() is doing something useful, and then fixes Nuthan's bug on top (with a test case, but I also confirmed it makes the original tomcat issue go away). [1/3]: t8003: check output of coalesced blame [2/3]: t8003: factor setup out of coalesce test [3/3]: blame: only coalesce lines that are adjacent in result blame.c | 1 + t/t8003-blame-corner-cases.sh | 28 +++++++++++++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) -Peff
