| Message ID | CAP0H_AEd1jFNB_dO=HRjwEUKzFqnjntss_1wskKU6hE1VmBs+A@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | problem with parsing of patch files for patch-id | expand |
Rob Linden <rlinden@redhat.com> writes: > This patch (also attached) fixes it by only considering commit hashes > in a "From xxxxx..." line: If I am not mistaken, "git patch-id" was designed to read from git rev-list ... commit range ... | git diff-tree --stdin -p where we see 9005149a4a77e2d3409c6127bf4fd1a0893c3495 diff --git a/path b/path index ... ... patch text here ... so I would suspect that limiting the commit object names only to those that follow "From " (i.e. the format-patch output or output with the "--format=email" option) would break existing use cases big time.
Hello Junio! Thanks for the clue, You're right... I only work with the email format so I didn't think of that. My solution doesn't work then... I had a different idea first: to check if we already got an oid and only read a new one once the current diff is finished (and wasn't empty so far). The other one seemed just simpler. I will try again... Thanks & all the best, rob On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 7:05 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Rob Linden <rlinden@redhat.com> writes: > > > This patch (also attached) fixes it by only considering commit hashes > > in a "From xxxxx..." line: > > If I am not mistaken, "git patch-id" was designed to read from > > git rev-list ... commit range ... | git diff-tree --stdin -p > > where we see > > 9005149a4a77e2d3409c6127bf4fd1a0893c3495 > diff --git a/path b/path > index ... > ... patch text here ... > > so I would suspect that limiting the commit object names only to > those that follow "From " (i.e. the format-patch output or output > with the "--format=email" option) would break existing use cases big > time. >
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > Rob Linden <rlinden@redhat.com> writes: > >> This patch (also attached) fixes it by only considering commit hashes >> in a "From xxxxx..." line: > > If I am not mistaken, "git patch-id" was designed to read from > > git rev-list ... commit range ... | git diff-tree --stdin -p > > where we see > > 9005149a4a77e2d3409c6127bf4fd1a0893c3495 > diff --git a/path b/path > index ... > ... patch text here ... > > so I would suspect that limiting the commit object names only to > those that follow "From " (i.e. the format-patch output or output > with the "--format=email" option) would break existing use cases big > time. Let's do this to make sure we have a baseline that we will not break. ------- >8 ------------- >8 ------------- >8 ------- [PATCH] t4204: patch-id supports various input format "git patch-id" was first developed to read from "git diff-tree --stdin -p" output. Later it was enhanced to read from "git diff-tree --stdin -p -v", which was the downstream of an early imitation of "git log" ("git rev-list" run in the upstream of a pipe to feed the "diff-tree"). These days, we also read from "git format-patch". Their output begins slightly differently, but the patch-id computed over them for the same commit should be the same. Ensure that we won't accidentally break this expectation. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> --- t/t4204-patch-id.sh | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) diff --git c/t/t4204-patch-id.sh w/t/t4204-patch-id.sh index 605faea0c7..ebce72b2ce 100755 --- c/t/t4204-patch-id.sh +++ w/t/t4204-patch-id.sh @@ -114,6 +114,29 @@ test_expect_success 'patch-id supports git-format-patch output' ' test "$2" = $(git rev-parse HEAD) ' +test_expect_success 'patch-id computes the same for various formats' ' + # This test happens to consider "git log -p -1" output + # the canonical input format, so use it as the norm. + git log -1 -p same >log-p.output && + git patch-id <log-p.output >expect && + + # format-patch begins with "From <commit object name>" + git format-patch -1 --stdout same >format-patch.output && + git patch-id <format-patch.output >actual && + test_cmp actual expect && + + # "diff-tree --stdin -p" begins with "<commit object name>" + same=$(git rev-parse same) && + echo $same | git diff-tree --stdin -p >diff-tree.output && + git patch-id <diff-tree.output >actual && + test_cmp actual expect && + + # "diff-tree --stdin -v -p" begins with "commit <commit object name>" + echo $same | git diff-tree --stdin -p -v >diff-tree-v.output && + git patch-id <diff-tree-v.output >actual && + test_cmp actual expect +' + test_expect_success 'whitespace is irrelevant in footer' ' get_patch_id main && git checkout same &&
diff --git a/builtin/patch-id.c b/builtin/patch-id.c index 583099cacf..4b8a41bde8 100644 --- a/builtin/patch-id.c +++ b/builtin/patch-id.c @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ static int get_one_patchid(struct object_id *next_oid, struct object_id *result, continue; } - if (!get_oid_hex(p, next_oid)) { + if (starts_with(p-5, "From ") && !get_oid_hex(p, next_oid)) { found_next = 1; break; }
Hello! We noticed a problem with the parsing of a patch file for "git patch-id". I understand that the patch file format is very difficult and unpredictable and probably it's not even possible to correctly parse all of them (mostly due to missing restrictions on or escaping of commit messages). But in our specific case it can be improved to handle it correctly. I attached an example patch file. When feeding that to "git patch-id" (with git version 2.45.2.561.g66ac6e4bcd) the output is: 068a8a30a5b0e55b93fdc16b2a7dcd6886e420f3 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 818756276fff2c6075da8effe36c65d25e6ed592 dcc59dffa5116bf96618065cd60742cb660224b8 b033e3eca8a60741bb414689ddfe00a0c1a09de5 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 But it should be: 068a8a30a5b0e55b93fdc16b2a7dcd6886e420f3 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 818756276fff2c6075da8effe36c65d25e6ed592 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222 b033e3eca8a60741bb414689ddfe00a0c1a09de5 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 The reason is that the commit message of the second patch contains commit hashes which are parsed as if they were the commit hash for the patch, and not just some message. This patch (also attached) fixes it by only considering commit hashes in a "From xxxxx..." line: } But I'm not sure it is ok in all other cases [which are handled correctly now, i.e. it only makes it better for cases like ours, without making it worse for anything else). The unit-tests pass ok but I didn't check how comprehensive they are. Can somebody please have a look and tell me what they think about patch file parsing? Thanks & all the best, rob