On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:06:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I don't think we'd ever generate this ourselves, but could somebody > > manually edit a hunk into this shape? When I tried it in practice, it > > looks like we fail to apply the result even before my patch, though. I'm > > not sure why that is. If I put "some garbage" without the blank line, we > > correctly realize it should be discarded. It's possible I'm just holding > > it wrong. > > I've given up on the "hunk edit" doing wrong things to a patch > already. > > The "edit" codepath used to be a lot less careless before Phillip > whipped it into a much better shape with the series that ended at > 436d18f2 (Merge branch 'pw/add-p-recount', 2018-03-14), that > introduced recount_edited_hunk() that special cases "+/-/ ". It > already knows that a completely empty line in a patch is an empty > and unmodified line (which was ported from f4d35a6b (add -p: fix > counting empty context lines in edited patches, 2018-06-11)), so > this patch does not have to do anything new there. Yeah, I was being paranoid without actually thinking through the implications. As Phillip noted, we do not even run the code I changed on the edited hunk (which already does handle the empty line). So not only could I not break it, but it is already doing the right thing thanks to that earlier work. > But "recounting" will be fooled by garbage left in the edited > result, so I think we have done all we can do to resolve possible > ambiguities. The patch under discussion is not adding anything new > and making it any worse, I would say. Yep, agreed. So modulo a slight inaccuracy in the commit message, I think my patch is OK. That said, I like what Phillip showed in his reply. If he wants to wrap that up into a patch, I think it could replace mine. -Peff
