tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
diff mbox series

Message ID 20181103153049.22850-1-pclouds@gmail.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
Related show

Commit Message

Duy Nguyen Nov. 3, 2018, 3:30 p.m. UTC
tree_entry_interesting() is used for matching pathspec on a tree. The
interesting thing about this function is that, because the tree
entries are known to be sorted, this function can return more than
just "yes, matched" and "no, not matched". It can also say "yes, this
entry is matched and so is the remaining entries in the tree".

This is where I made a mistake when matching exclude pathspec. For
exclude pathspec, we do matching twice, one with positive patterns and
one with negative ones, then a rule table is applied to determine the
final "include or exclude" result. Note that "matched" does not
necessarily mean include. For negative patterns, "matched" means
exclude.

This particular rule is too eager to include everything. Rule 8 says
that "if all entries are positively matched" and the current entry is
not negatively matched (i.e. not excluded), then all entries are
positively matched and therefore included. But this is not true. If
the _current_ entry is not negatively matched, it does not mean the
next one will not be and we cannot conclude right away that all
remaining entries are positively matched and can be included.

Rules 8 and 18 are now updated to be less eager. We conclude that the
current entry is positively matched and included. But we say nothing
about remaining entries. tree_entry_interesting() will be called again
for those entries where we will determine entries individually.

Reported-by: Christophe Bliard <christophe.bliard@trux.info>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
---
 t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 tree-walk.c                 | 11 ++++++++---
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Eric Sunshine Nov. 4, 2018, 12:25 a.m. UTC | #1
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rules 8 and 18 are now updated to be less eager. We conclude that the
> current entry is positively matched and included. But we say nothing
> about remaining entries. tree_entry_interesting() will be called again
> for those entries where we will determine entries individually.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh b/t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh
> @@ -194,4 +194,21 @@ test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' '
> +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' '
> +       git init case8 &&
> +       (
> +               cd case8 &&
> +               echo file >file1 &&
> +               echo file >file2 &&
> +               git add . &&

Won't this loose git-add invocation end up adding all the junk files
from earlier tests? One might have expected to see the more restricted
invocation:

    git add file1 file2 &&

to make it easier to reason about the test and not worry about someone
later inserting tests above this one which might interfere with it.

> +               git commit -m twofiles &&
> +               git grep -l file HEAD :^file2 >actual &&
> +               echo HEAD:file1 >expected &&
> +               test_cmp expected actual &&
> +               git grep -l file HEAD :^file1 >actual &&
> +               echo HEAD:file2 >expected &&
> +               test_cmp expected actual
> +       )
> +'
Eric Sunshine Nov. 4, 2018, 6:27 a.m. UTC | #2
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 8:25 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' '
> > +       git init case8 &&
> > +       (
> > +               cd case8 &&
> > +               echo file >file1 &&
> > +               echo file >file2 &&
> > +               git add . &&
>
> Won't this loose git-add invocation end up adding all the junk files
> from earlier tests? One might have expected to see the more restricted
> invocation:
>     git add file1 file2 &&
> to make it easier to reason about the test and not worry about someone
> later inserting tests above this one which might interfere with it.

Upon reflection, there shouldn't be any junk files since this test is
creating a new repository and "file1" and "file2" are the only files
present. Apparently, I wasn't paying close enough attention when I
made the earlier observation.

Anyhow, the more restricted git-add invocation you used in the re-roll
is still preferable since it makes the intention obvious. Thanks.
Duy Nguyen Nov. 4, 2018, 6:29 a.m. UTC | #3
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:27 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 8:25 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' '
> > > +       git init case8 &&
> > > +       (
> > > +               cd case8 &&
> > > +               echo file >file1 &&
> > > +               echo file >file2 &&
> > > +               git add . &&
> >
> > Won't this loose git-add invocation end up adding all the junk files
> > from earlier tests? One might have expected to see the more restricted
> > invocation:
> >     git add file1 file2 &&
> > to make it easier to reason about the test and not worry about someone
> > later inserting tests above this one which might interfere with it.
>
> Upon reflection, there shouldn't be any junk files since this test is
> creating a new repository and "file1" and "file2" are the only files
> present. Apparently, I wasn't paying close enough attention when I
> made the earlier observation.

Yup.

> Anyhow, the more restricted git-add invocation you used in the re-roll
> is still preferable since it makes the intention obvious. Thanks.

Which is why I did it anyway :)

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh b/t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh
index eb829fce97..393b29f205 100755
--- a/t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh
+++ b/t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh
@@ -194,4 +194,21 @@  test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' '
 	test_cmp expect actual
 '
 
+test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' '
+	git init case8 &&
+	(
+		cd case8 &&
+		echo file >file1 &&
+		echo file >file2 &&
+		git add . &&
+		git commit -m twofiles &&
+		git grep -l file HEAD :^file2 >actual &&
+		echo HEAD:file1 >expected &&
+		test_cmp expected actual &&
+		git grep -l file HEAD :^file1 >actual &&
+		echo HEAD:file2 >expected &&
+		test_cmp expected actual
+	)
+'
+
 test_done
diff --git a/tree-walk.c b/tree-walk.c
index 77b37f36fa..79bafbd1a2 100644
--- a/tree-walk.c
+++ b/tree-walk.c
@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@  enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,
 	 *   5  |  file |    1     |    1     |   0
 	 *   6  |  file |    1     |    2     |   0
 	 *   7  |  file |    2     |   -1     |   2
-	 *   8  |  file |    2     |    0     |   2
+	 *   8  |  file |    2     |    0     |   1
 	 *   9  |  file |    2     |    1     |   0
 	 *  10  |  file |    2     |    2     |  -1
 	 * -----+-------+----------+----------+-------
@@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@  enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,
 	 *  15  |  dir  |    1     |    1     |   1 (*)
 	 *  16  |  dir  |    1     |    2     |   0
 	 *  17  |  dir  |    2     |   -1     |   2
-	 *  18  |  dir  |    2     |    0     |   2
+	 *  18  |  dir  |    2     |    0     |   1
 	 *  19  |  dir  |    2     |    1     |   1 (*)
 	 *  20  |  dir  |    2     |    2     |  -1
 	 *
@@ -1134,7 +1134,12 @@  enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,
 
 	negative = do_match(entry, base, base_offset, ps, 1);
 
-	/* #3, #4, #7, #8, #13, #14, #17, #18 */
+	/* #8, #18 */
+	if (positive == all_entries_interesting &&
+	    negative == entry_not_interesting)
+		return entry_interesting;
+
+	/* #3, #4, #7, #13, #14, #17 */
 	if (negative <= entry_not_interesting)
 		return positive;