| Message ID | pull.1123.git.git.1635883844710.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | rebase -i: fix rewording with --committer-date-is-author-date | expand |
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 4:10 PM Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > baf8ec8d3a (rebase -r: don't write .git/MERGE_MSG when > fast-forwarding, 2021-08-20) stopped reading the author script in > run_git_commit() when rewording a commit. This is normally safe > because "git commit --amend" preserves the authorship. However if the > user passes "--committer-date-is-author-date" then we need to read the > author date from the author script when rewording. Fix this regression > by tightening the check for when it is safe to skip reading the author > script. > > Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Should this have a: Reported-by: Jonas Kittner <jonas.kittner@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> ?
Hi Eric On 02/11/2021 21:05, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 4:10 PM Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: >> baf8ec8d3a (rebase -r: don't write .git/MERGE_MSG when >> fast-forwarding, 2021-08-20) stopped reading the author script in >> run_git_commit() when rewording a commit. This is normally safe >> because "git commit --amend" preserves the authorship. However if the >> user passes "--committer-date-is-author-date" then we need to read the >> author date from the author script when rewording. Fix this regression >> by tightening the check for when it is safe to skip reading the author >> script. >> >> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> > > Should this have a: > > Reported-by: Jonas Kittner <jonas.kittner@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> Yes it should and does locally but I forgot to push the updated version. Thanks Phillip > ? >
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:10:44PM +0000, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> > > baf8ec8d3a (rebase -r: don't write .git/MERGE_MSG when > fast-forwarding, 2021-08-20) stopped reading the author script in > run_git_commit() when rewording a commit. This is normally safe > because "git commit --amend" preserves the authorship. However if the > user passes "--committer-date-is-author-date" then we need to read the > author date from the author script when rewording. Fix this regression > by tightening the check for when it is safe to skip reading the author > script. That description makes sense, and the patch matches. Not being that familiar with this area, my biggest question would be: are there are other cases that would need the same treatment? And is there a way we can make it easier to avoid forgetting such a case in the future? > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c > index cd2aabf1f76..ea96837cde3 100644 > --- a/sequencer.c > +++ b/sequencer.c > @@ -997,7 +997,9 @@ static int run_git_commit(const char *defmsg, > > cmd.git_cmd = 1; > > - if (is_rebase_i(opts) && !(!defmsg && (flags & AMEND_MSG)) && > + if (is_rebase_i(opts) && > + ((opts->committer_date_is_author_date && !opts->ignore_date) || > + !(!defmsg && (flags & AMEND_MSG))) && > read_env_script(&cmd.env_array)) { > const char *gpg_opt = gpg_sign_opt_quoted(opts); This conditional is getting pretty complicated. I wonder if a helper like: if (is_rebase_i(opts) && !needs_env_script(...)) might help, but I guess it needs a funky array of inputs (defmsg, flags, and opts). So maybe it is just making things worse. > +test_expect_success '--committer-date-is-author-date works when rewording' ' > + GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="@1234 +0300" git commit --amend --reset-author && > + ( > + set_fake_editor && > + FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=edited \ > + FAKE_LINES="reword 1" \ > + git rebase -i --committer-date-is-author-date HEAD^ > + ) && > + test_write_lines edited "" >expect && > + git log --format="%B" -1 >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual && > + test_ctime_is_atime -1 > +' This test make sense (I had to look up what "-1" means for test_ctime_is_atime; it's passed to git-log to decide which commits to look at). > +test_expect_success 'reset-author-date with --committer-date-is-author-date works when rewording' ' > + GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="@1234 +0300" git commit --amend --reset-author && > + ( > + set_fake_editor && > + FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=edited \ > + FAKE_LINES="reword 1" \ > + git rebase -i --committer-date-is-author-date \ > + --reset-author-date HEAD^ > + ) && > + test_write_lines edited "" >expect && > + git log --format="%B" -1 >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual && > + test_atime_is_ignored -1 > +' And this one I guess is covering the --ignore-date cut-out in the code? I think it would pass even without it, as that is just noting a case where we _don't_ need to call read_env_script(). But I don't know if there is any user-visible effect of accidentally calling it when we don't need to (my impression is that it's just a performance thing). -Peff
Hi Peff On 02/11/2021 22:32, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:10:44PM +0000, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> >> >> baf8ec8d3a (rebase -r: don't write .git/MERGE_MSG when >> fast-forwarding, 2021-08-20) stopped reading the author script in >> run_git_commit() when rewording a commit. This is normally safe >> because "git commit --amend" preserves the authorship. However if the >> user passes "--committer-date-is-author-date" then we need to read the >> author date from the author script when rewording. Fix this regression >> by tightening the check for when it is safe to skip reading the author >> script. > > That description makes sense, and the patch matches. Not being that > familiar with this area, my biggest question would be: are there are > other cases that would need the same treatment? And is there a way we > can make it easier to avoid forgetting such a case in the future? I don't think there are any other cases (but then I thought that when I wrote the buggy patch...). The only time we change the authorship is if the user passes --committer-date-is-author-date or --reset-author-date. I agree it would be good to have a way to avoid this problem in the future but I haven't come up with an easy way to do that. One possibility would be to go back to always reading the author script. That would mean revisiting the changes to do_merge() in baf8ec8d3a so that it always writes the author script and .git/MERGE_MSG but removes them when fast-forwarding (the problem that baf8ec8d3a tried to solve was a left over .git/MERGE_MSG when do_merge() fast-forwarded) I don't want to do that in the rc window though. >> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c >> index cd2aabf1f76..ea96837cde3 100644 >> --- a/sequencer.c >> +++ b/sequencer.c >> @@ -997,7 +997,9 @@ static int run_git_commit(const char *defmsg, >> >> cmd.git_cmd = 1; >> >> - if (is_rebase_i(opts) && !(!defmsg && (flags & AMEND_MSG)) && >> + if (is_rebase_i(opts) && >> + ((opts->committer_date_is_author_date && !opts->ignore_date) || >> + !(!defmsg && (flags & AMEND_MSG))) && >> read_env_script(&cmd.env_array)) { >> const char *gpg_opt = gpg_sign_opt_quoted(opts); > > This conditional is getting pretty complicated. I wonder if a helper > like: > > if (is_rebase_i(opts) && !needs_env_script(...)) > > might help, but I guess it needs a funky array of inputs (defmsg, flags, > and opts). So maybe it is just making things worse. As you say it needs a lot of inputs so I'm not sure how much a function would help. I did consider changing it to if (is_rebase_i(opts) && ((opts->committer_date_is_author_date && !opts->ignore_date) || defmsg || !(flags & AMEND_MSG))) but as we're in the rc phase I decided to leave the existing condition alone. >> +test_expect_success '--committer-date-is-author-date works when rewording' ' >> + GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="@1234 +0300" git commit --amend --reset-author && >> + ( >> + set_fake_editor && >> + FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=edited \ >> + FAKE_LINES="reword 1" \ >> + git rebase -i --committer-date-is-author-date HEAD^ >> + ) && >> + test_write_lines edited "" >expect && >> + git log --format="%B" -1 >actual && >> + test_cmp expect actual && >> + test_ctime_is_atime -1 >> +' > > This test make sense (I had to look up what "-1" means for > test_ctime_is_atime; it's passed to git-log to decide which commits to > look at). Yeah I had to check what the -1 was for when writing the test, maybe we should change the helper to add the '-' for us once 2.34.0 is out. >> +test_expect_success 'reset-author-date with --committer-date-is-author-date works when rewording' ' >> + GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="@1234 +0300" git commit --amend --reset-author && >> + ( >> + set_fake_editor && >> + FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=edited \ >> + FAKE_LINES="reword 1" \ >> + git rebase -i --committer-date-is-author-date \ >> + --reset-author-date HEAD^ >> + ) && >> + test_write_lines edited "" >expect && >> + git log --format="%B" -1 >actual && >> + test_cmp expect actual && >> + test_atime_is_ignored -1 >> +' > > And this one I guess is covering the --ignore-date cut-out in the code? Yes > I think it would pass even without it, as that is just noting a case > where we _don't_ need to call read_env_script(). That's right. > But I don't know if > there is any user-visible effect of accidentally calling it when we > don't need to (my impression is that it's just a performance thing). There should not be any user-visible effects from reading the author script when --ignore-date is given but we don't need to read it in that case so I opted not to. Thanks for your comments, are you happy for this to go in as is or should I look at simplifying the conditional? Phillip > -Peff >
On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 11:23:28AM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote: > > That description makes sense, and the patch matches. Not being that > > familiar with this area, my biggest question would be: are there are > > other cases that would need the same treatment? And is there a way we > > can make it easier to avoid forgetting such a case in the future? > > I don't think there are any other cases (but then I thought that when I > wrote the buggy patch...). The only time we change the authorship is if the > user passes --committer-date-is-author-date or --reset-author-date. I agree > it would be good to have a way to avoid this problem in the future but I > haven't come up with an easy way to do that. One possibility would be to go > back to always reading the author script. That would mean revisiting the > changes to do_merge() in baf8ec8d3a so that it always writes the author > script and .git/MERGE_MSG but removes them when fast-forwarding (the problem > that baf8ec8d3a tried to solve was a left over .git/MERGE_MSG when > do_merge() fast-forwarded) I don't want to do that in the rc window though. I suspected the answers to my questions were "I hope so" and "not really", which I think matches what you wrote. :) If there isn't an easy way to make it more future-proof, then I'm content that you've given it some thought and didn't find any other cases. We can proceed from here with this fix, and be on the lookout for any other cases that people report (on the plus side, the BUG() made it quite obvious that there was a problem, rather than a subtle behavior change). > Thanks for your comments, are you happy for this to go in as is or should I > look at simplifying the conditional? I'm happy enough with it. I don't know what the plan is for the -rc period, though. AFAICT the bug is in v2.33.1, so it's not technically a v2.34-rc problem. It could wait for the next maint release. -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > I'm happy enough with it. I don't know what the plan is for the -rc > period, though. AFAICT the bug is in v2.33.1, so it's not technically a > v2.34-rc problem. It could wait for the next maint release. Hmph, if it was in v2.33.0 then it is not, but if it was introduced between v2.33.0 and v2.33.1, then it is a problem for the current cycle, no?
On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 10:44:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > I'm happy enough with it. I don't know what the plan is for the -rc > > period, though. AFAICT the bug is in v2.33.1, so it's not technically a > > v2.34-rc problem. It could wait for the next maint release. > > Hmph, if it was in v2.33.0 then it is not, but if it was introduced > between v2.33.0 and v2.33.1, then it is a problem for the current > cycle, no? I guess it depends how you consider the cycle. It's in v2.33.1 but not v2.33.0, so yes, anybody going from v2.33.0 to v2.34.0 will see it as a regression. I don't have any problem with fixing it for v2.34.0, and I think the fix Phillip provided is minimally invasive. I just didn't consider it quite the same as a bug that had never been in a released version at all (and I know you are often hesitant to throw too much into the -rc part of the cycle). -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > ... I just didn't > consider it quite the same as a bug that had never been in a released > version at all (and I know you are often hesitant to throw too much into > the -rc part of the cycle). Ah, I see. 2.33.1 was 2.33.0 plus what was queued on 'master' back then for 2.34.0, and more importantly, we do not issue the maintenance track very often these days (except for occasional security patches). To put it differently, I didn't have to issue 2.33.1. There was nothing urgent in there, and it was just that the cycle toward 2.34 was unusually busy and there were too many accumulated fixes on the 'master' front that were 'maint' material. And for that reason, in my mind, 2.33.1 cannot be treated quite the same way as feature releases X.YY.0, when I say "The bug was already present in that released version, so fixing it is not all that urgent".
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c index cd2aabf1f76..ea96837cde3 100644 --- a/sequencer.c +++ b/sequencer.c @@ -997,7 +997,9 @@ static int run_git_commit(const char *defmsg, cmd.git_cmd = 1; - if (is_rebase_i(opts) && !(!defmsg && (flags & AMEND_MSG)) && + if (is_rebase_i(opts) && + ((opts->committer_date_is_author_date && !opts->ignore_date) || + !(!defmsg && (flags & AMEND_MSG))) && read_env_script(&cmd.env_array)) { const char *gpg_opt = gpg_sign_opt_quoted(opts); diff --git a/t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh b/t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh index 4d106642ba7..94671d3c465 100755 --- a/t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh +++ b/t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh @@ -82,6 +82,20 @@ test_expect_success '--committer-date-is-author-date works with merge backend' ' test_ctime_is_atime -1 ' +test_expect_success '--committer-date-is-author-date works when rewording' ' + GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="@1234 +0300" git commit --amend --reset-author && + ( + set_fake_editor && + FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=edited \ + FAKE_LINES="reword 1" \ + git rebase -i --committer-date-is-author-date HEAD^ + ) && + test_write_lines edited "" >expect && + git log --format="%B" -1 >actual && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_ctime_is_atime -1 +' + test_expect_success '--committer-date-is-author-date works with rebase -r' ' git checkout side && GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="@1234 +0300" git merge --no-ff commit3 && @@ -155,6 +169,21 @@ test_expect_success '--reset-author-date with --committer-date-is-author-date wo test_atime_is_ignored -2 ' +test_expect_success 'reset-author-date with --committer-date-is-author-date works when rewording' ' + GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="@1234 +0300" git commit --amend --reset-author && + ( + set_fake_editor && + FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=edited \ + FAKE_LINES="reword 1" \ + git rebase -i --committer-date-is-author-date \ + --reset-author-date HEAD^ + ) && + test_write_lines edited "" >expect && + git log --format="%B" -1 >actual && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_atime_is_ignored -1 +' + test_expect_success '--reset-author-date --committer-date-is-author-date works when forking merge' ' GIT_SEQUENCE_EDITOR="echo \"merge -C $(git rev-parse HEAD) commit3\">" \ PATH="./test-bin:$PATH" git rebase -i --strategy=test \