On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Jeff King <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:32:54AM +0000, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains
>> option in addition to their longstanding --contains options.
>>
>> This allows for finding the last-good rollout tag given a known-bad
>> <commit>. Given a hypothetically bad commit cf5c7253e0 the git version
>> revert to can be found with this hacky two-liner:
>
> s/revert to/to &/, I think.
Done.
>
>> With this new --no-contains the same can be achieved with:
>> [..]
>
> The goal sounds good to me.
>
>> In addition to those tests, add a test for "tag" which asserts that
>> --no-contains won't find tree/blob tags, which is slightly
>> unintuitive, but consistent with how --contains works & is documented.
>
> Makes sense. In theory we could dig into commits to find trees and blobs
> when the user gives us one. But I kind of doubt anybody really wants it,
> and it's expensive to compute. For the simple cases, --points-at already
> does the right thing.
>
> [more on that below, though...]
>
>> @@ -604,7 +606,7 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char
>> *prefix)
>> if (!delete && !rename && !edit_description && !new_upstream &&
>> !unset_upstream && argc == 0)
>> list = 1;
>>
>> - if (filter.with_commit || filter.merge != REF_FILTER_MERGED_NONE ||
>> filter.points_at.nr)
>> + if (filter.with_commit || filter.no_commit || filter.merge !=
>> REF_FILTER_MERGED_NONE || filter.points_at.nr)
>> list = 1;
>
> Could we wrap this long conditional?
Done. Will also go through the series as a whole & find other such occurances.
>> diff --git a/builtin/for-each-ref.c b/builtin/for-each-ref.c
>> index df41fa0350..a11542c4fd 100644
>> --- a/builtin/for-each-ref.c
>> +++ b/builtin/for-each-ref.c
>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ static char const * const for_each_ref_usage[] = {
>> N_("git for-each-ref [<options>] [<pattern>]"),
>> N_("git for-each-ref [--points-at <object>]"),
>> N_("git for-each-ref [(--merged | --no-merged) [<object>]]"),
>> - N_("git for-each-ref [--contains [<object>]]"),
>> + N_("git for-each-ref [(--contains | --no-contains) [<object>]]"),
>> NULL
>
> I'm not sure if this presentation implies that the two cannot be used
> together. It copies "--merged/--no-merged", but I think those two
> _can't_ be used together (it probably wouldn't be hard to make it work,
> but if nobody cares it may not be worth spending time on).
Yeah this has been bothering me a bit too. I'll change the various
--help and synopsis entries to split them up, since they're not
mutually exclusive at all.
> I also wonder if we need to explicitly document that --contains and
> --no-contains can be used together and don't cancel each other. The
> other option is to pick a new name ("--omits" is the most concise one I
> could think of; maybe that is preferable anyway because it avoids
> negation).
>
>> @@ -457,7 +459,7 @@ int cmd_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char
>> *prefix)
>> if (!cmdmode && !create_tag_object) {
>> if (argc == 0)
>> cmdmode = 'l';
>> - else if (filter.with_commit || filter.points_at.nr ||
>> filter.merge_commit || filter.lines != -1)
>> + else if (filter.with_commit || filter.no_commit ||
>> filter.points_at.nr || filter.merge_commit || filter.lines != -1)
>
> Ditto here on the wrapping. There were a few other long lines, but I
> won't point them all out.
>
>> - /* We perform the filtering for the '--contains' option */
>> + /* We perform the filtering for the '--contains' option... */
>> if (filter->with_commit &&
>> - !commit_contains(filter, commit,
>> &ref_cbdata->contains_cache))
>> + !commit_contains(filter, commit, filter->with_commit,
>> &ref_cbdata->contains_cache))
>> + return 0;
>> + /* ...or for the `--no-contains' option */
>> + if (filter->no_commit &&
>> + commit_contains(filter, commit, filter->no_commit,
>> &ref_cbdata->no_contains_cache))
>> return 0;
>
> This looks nice and simple. Good.
>
>> +# As the docs say, list tags which contain a specified *commit*. We
>> +# don't recurse down to tags for trees or blobs pointed to by *those*
>> +# commits.
>> +test_expect_success 'Does --[no-]contains stop at commits? Yes!' '
>> + cd no-contains &&
>> + blob=$(git rev-parse v0.3:v0.3.t) &&
>> + tree=$(git rev-parse v0.3^{tree}) &&
>> + git tag tag-blob $blob &&
>> + git tag tag-tree $tree &&
>> + git tag --contains v0.3 >actual &&
>> + cat >expected <<-\EOF &&
>> + v0.3
>> + v0.4
>> + v0.5
>> + EOF
>> + test_cmp expected actual &&
>> + git tag --no-contains v0.3 >actual &&
>> + cat >expected <<-\EOF &&
>> + v0.1
>> + v0.2
>> + EOF
>> + test_cmp expected actual
>> +'
>
> The tests mostly look fine, but this one puzzled me. I guess we're
> checking that tag-blob does not contain v0.3. But how could it?
It's a very defensive test, but I'd like to leave it in.
It would be possible, and perhaps efficient in some cases, to
implement "--no-contains <commit>" internally as literally something
that just ran "--contains <commit>", got the list of tags, stashed
them into a hash, and then did a "git tag -l" and printed out anything
*not* in the hash.
This test is asserting that we don't somehow regress to such an implementation.
> The more interesting test to me is:
>
> git tag --contains $blob
>
> which should barf on a non-commit.
Will make sure that's tested for.
> For the --no-contains side, you could argue that the blob-tag doesn't
> contain the commit, and it should be listed. But it looks like we just
> drop all non-commit tags completely as soon as we start to do a
> contains/not-contains traversal.
>
> I think the more relevant comparison is "--no-merged", and it behaves
> the same way as your new --no-contains. I don't think I saw this
> subtlety in the documentation, though. It might be worth mentioning
> (unless I just missed it).
For --contains we explicitly document "contain the specified commit",
i.e. you couldn't expect this to list tree-test, and indeed it
doesn't:
$ git tag tree-test master^{tree}
$ git tag -l --contains master '*test*'
However the --[no-]merged option says "reachable [...] from the
specified commit", which seems to me to be a bit more ambiguous as to
whether you could expect it to print tree/blob tags.
