From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Miriam Rubio <mirucam@gmail.com>,
Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>,
Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bisect: peel annotated tags to commits
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:23:13 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c41383f-55b5-a68e-4e35-8b8dc4694375@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YFDLq9mLbJtLqKea@coredump.intra.peff.net>
I can reproduce this issue with v2.31.0 (as you mentioned).
Applying the patch, bisecting between annotated tags now worked
just before git bisect is rewritten in C.
Thanks.
Tested-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
On 16/03/21 22.15, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:53:19AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:05:51PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>
>>> $ git --version
>>> git version 2.31.0
>>> $ git bisect start
>>> $ git bisect good v2.30.0
>>> $ git bisect bad v2.31.0
>>> 3e90d4b58f3819cfd58ac61cb8668e83d3ea0563 was both good and bad
>>
>> Looks like it bisects to 27257bc466 (bisect--helper: reimplement
>> `bisect_state` & `bisect_head` shell functions in C, 2020-10-15), which
>> isn't too surprising. So it broke in v2.30, but nobody seems to have
>> noticed during the last cycle.
>>
>> I'd guess it's just missing a call to peel the input oid.
>
> Yep. Here's a fix. Again, not new in v2.31, so we don't have to worry
> about a brown-bag fix for yesterday's release. But I do think it's worth
> trying to get onto a maint release. I prepared this patch on top of
> mr/bisect-in-c-3.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] bisect: peel annotated tags to commits
>
> This patch fixes a bug where git-bisect doesn't handle receiving
> annotated tags as "git bisect good <tag>", etc. It's a regression in
> 27257bc466 (bisect--helper: reimplement `bisect_state` & `bisect_head`
> shell functions in C, 2020-10-15).
>
> The original shell code called:
>
> sha=$(git rev-parse --verify "$rev^{commit}") ||
> die "$(eval_gettext "Bad rev input: \$rev")"
>
> which will peel the input to a commit (or complain if that's not
> possible). But the C code just calls get_oid(), which will yield the oid
> of the tag.
>
> The fix is to peel to a commit. The error message here is a little
> non-idiomatic for Git (since it starts with a capital). I've mostly left
> it, as it matches the other converted messages (like the "Bad rev input"
> we print when get_oid() fails), though I did add an indication that it
> was the peeling that was the problem. It might be worth taking a pass
> through this converted code to modernize some of the error messages.
>
> Note also that the test does a bare "grep" (not i18ngrep) on the
> expected "X is the first bad commit" output message. This matches the
> rest of the test script.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> builtin/bisect--helper.c | 9 ++++++++-
> t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 12 ++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> index fc6ca257a4..f0eeb4a2f0 100644
> --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> @@ -876,12 +876,19 @@ static enum bisect_error bisect_state(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **a
> */
>
> for (; argc; argc--, argv++) {
> + struct commit *commit;
> +
> if (get_oid(*argv, &oid)){
> error(_("Bad rev input: %s"), *argv);
> oid_array_clear(&revs);
> return BISECT_FAILED;
> }
> - oid_array_append(&revs, &oid);
> +
> + commit = lookup_commit_reference(the_repository, &oid);
> + if (!commit)
> + die(_("Bad rev input (not a commit): %s"), *argv);
> +
> + oid_array_append(&revs, &commit->object.oid);
> }
>
> if (strbuf_read_file(&buf, git_path_bisect_expected_rev(), 0) < the_hash_algo->hexsz ||
> diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> index b886529e59..9c389553a7 100755
> --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> @@ -929,4 +929,16 @@ test_expect_success 'git bisect reset cleans bisection state properly' '
> test_path_is_missing "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'bisect handles annotated tags' '
> + test_commit commit-one &&
> + git tag -m foo tag-one &&
> + test_commit commit-two &&
> + git tag -m foo tag-two &&
> + git bisect start &&
> + git bisect good tag-one &&
> + git bisect bad tag-two >output &&
> + bad=$(git rev-parse --verify tag-two^{commit}) &&
> + grep "$bad is the first bad commit" output
> +'
> +
> test_done
>
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-17 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-16 13:05 git bisect fails to handle annotated tags Andreas Schwab
2021-03-16 14:53 ` Jeff King
2021-03-16 15:15 ` [PATCH] bisect: peel annotated tags to commits Jeff King
2021-03-17 8:23 ` Bagas Sanjaya [this message]
2021-03-17 18:24 ` Junio C Hamano
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=5c41383f-55b5-a68e-4e35-8b8dc4694375@gmail.com \
--to=bagasdotme@gmail.com \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mirucam@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=pranit.bauva@gmail.com \
--cc=schwab@linux-m68k.org \
/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).