From: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>,
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] bisect: only check merge bases when needed
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:16:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080722081618.a4bf2ba6.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> (raw)
When one good revision is not an ancestor of the bad revision, the
merge bases between the good and the bad revision should be checked
to make sure that they are also good revisions.
Some previous patches take care of that, but they may check the
merge bases more often than really needed. In fact the previous
patches did not try to optimize this as much as possible because
it is not so simple. So this is the purpose of this patch.
One may think that when all the merge bases have been checked then
we can save a flag, so that we don't need to check the merge bases
again during the bisect process.
The problem is that the user may choose to checkout and test
something completely different from what the bisect process
suggested. In this case we have to check the merge bases again,
because there may be new merge bases relevant to the bisect
process.
That's why, in this patch, when we detect that the user tested
something else than what the bisect process suggested, we remove
the flag that says that we don't need to check the merge bases
again.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
---
git-bisect.sh | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
index f6cb110..a7f5347 100755
--- a/git-bisect.sh
+++ b/git-bisect.sh
@@ -172,6 +172,25 @@ bisect_write() {
test -n "$nolog" || echo "git bisect $state $rev" >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG"
}
+is_expected_rev() {
+ test -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV" &&
+ test "$1" = $(cat "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV")
+}
+
+mark_expected_rev() {
+ echo "$1" > "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV"
+}
+
+check_expected_revs() {
+ for _rev in "$@"; do
+ if ! is_expected_rev "$_rev"; then
+ rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK"
+ rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV"
+ return
+ fi
+ done
+}
+
bisect_state() {
bisect_autostart
state=$1
@@ -181,7 +200,8 @@ bisect_state() {
1,bad|1,good|1,skip)
rev=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD) ||
die "Bad rev input: HEAD"
- bisect_write "$state" "$rev" ;;
+ bisect_write "$state" "$rev"
+ check_expected_revs "$rev" ;;
2,bad|*,good|*,skip)
shift
eval=''
@@ -191,7 +211,8 @@ bisect_state() {
die "Bad rev input: $rev"
eval="$eval bisect_write '$state' '$sha'; "
done
- eval "$eval" ;;
+ eval "$eval"
+ check_expected_revs "$@" ;;
*,bad)
die "'git bisect bad' can take only one argument." ;;
*)
@@ -320,6 +341,7 @@ checkout() {
_rev="$1"
_msg="$2"
echo "Bisecting: $_msg"
+ mark_expected_rev "$_rev"
git checkout -q "$_rev" || exit
git show-branch "$_rev"
}
@@ -339,18 +361,10 @@ mark_merge_base_ok() {
echo "$1 $2 ok" >> "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_MERGE_BASES"
}
-is_testing_merge_base() {
- grep "^testing $1$" "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_MERGE_BASES" >/dev/null 2>&1
-}
-
-mark_testing_merge_base() {
- echo "testing $1" >> "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_MERGE_BASES"
-}
-
handle_bad_merge_base() {
_badmb="$1"
_g="$2"
- if is_testing_merge_base "$_badmb"; then
+ if is_expected_rev "$_badmb"; then
cat >&2 <<EOF
The merge base $_badmb is bad.
This means the bug has been fixed between $_badmb and $_g.
@@ -391,7 +405,6 @@ check_merge_bases() {
elif is_among "$_mb" "$_skip"; then
handle_skipped_merge_base "$_bad" "$_g" "_mb"
else
- mark_testing_merge_base "$_mb"
checkout "$_mb" "a merge base must be tested"
checkout_done=1
return
@@ -402,11 +415,17 @@ check_merge_bases() {
}
check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad() {
+ test -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" &&
+ return
_bad="$1"
_good=$(echo $2 | sed -e 's/\^//g')
_skip="$3"
_side=$(git rev-list $_good ^$_bad)
- test -n "$_side" && check_merge_bases "$_bad" "$_good" "$_skip"
+ if test -n "$_side"; then
+ check_merge_bases "$_bad" "$_good" "$_skip" || return
+ test "$checkout_done" -eq "1" && return
+ fi
+ : > "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK"
}
bisect_next() {
@@ -496,6 +515,8 @@ bisect_clean_state() {
git update-ref -d $ref $hash || exit
done
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_MERGE_BASES" &&
+ rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV" &&
+ rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" &&
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" &&
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES" &&
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" &&
diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
index 503229b..17f264b 100755
--- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
+++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
@@ -440,6 +440,29 @@ test_expect_success 'good merge bases when good and bad are siblings' '
git bisect reset
'
+check_trace() {
+ grep "$1" "$GIT_TRACE" | grep "\^$2" | grep "$3" >/dev/null
+}
+
+test_expect_success 'optimized merge base checks' '
+ GIT_TRACE="$(pwd)/trace.log" &&
+ export GIT_TRACE &&
+ git bisect start "$HASH7" "$SIDE_HASH7" > my_bisect_log.txt &&
+ grep "merge base must be tested" my_bisect_log.txt &&
+ grep "$HASH4" my_bisect_log.txt &&
+ check_trace "rev-list" "$HASH7" "$SIDE_HASH7" &&
+ git bisect good > my_bisect_log2.txt &&
+ test -f ".git/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" &&
+ test "$HASH6" = $(git rev-parse --verify HEAD) &&
+ : > "$GIT_TRACE" &&
+ git bisect bad > my_bisect_log3.txt &&
+ test_must_fail check_trace "rev-list" "$HASH6" "$SIDE_HASH7" &&
+ git bisect good "$A_HASH" > my_bisect_log4.txt &&
+ grep "merge base must be tested" my_bisect_log4.txt &&
+ test_must_fail test -f ".git/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" &&
+ check_trace "rev-list" "$HASH6" "$A_HASH"
+'
+
#
#
test_done
--
1.5.6.2.300.gbed4
reply other threads:[~2008-07-22 6:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080722081618.a4bf2ba6.chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--to=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).