Re: [PATCH v3] ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison

[Karthik Nayak]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
> Karthik Nayak  writes:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
 Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname
 whenever the other criterion is equal. Fix the test in t3203 in this
 regard.
>>>
>>> It is unclear what "in this regard" is.  Do you mean this (I am not
>>> suggesting you to spell these out in a very detailed way in the
>>> final log message; I am deliberately being detailed here to help me
>>> understand what you really mean)?
>>>
>>> A test in t3203 was expecting that branch-two sorts before HEAD,
>>> which happened to be how qsort(3) on Linux sorted the array, but
>>> (1) that outcome was not even guaranteed, and (2) once we start
>>> breaking ties with the refname, "HEAD" should sort before
>>> "branch-two" so the original expectation was inconsistent with
>>> the criterion we now use.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly what you're saying, they happened to have the same objectsize.
>> Hence sorting them would put them together, but since we compare the
>> refname's the "HEAD" ref would come before "branch-two".
>>
>>> Update it to match the new world order, which we can now depend
>>> on being stable.
>>>
>>> I am not sure about "HEAD" and "branch-two" in the above (it may be
>>> comparison between "HEAD" and "refs/heads/branch-two", for example).
>>
>> It actually is, we consider "refs/heads/branch-two rather then the shortened
>> version of this. It makes sense to classify refs this way, even though this
>> was a side effect of this commit.
>
> Now these are enough bits of info, that can and needs to be
> condenced into an updated log message to help future readers.
>
> Thanks.

Will update and send, thanks :)

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v3] ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison

[Karthik Nayak]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
>> Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname
>> whenever the other criterion is equal. Fix the test in t3203 in this
>> regard.
>
> It is unclear what "in this regard" is.  Do you mean this (I am not
> suggesting you to spell these out in a very detailed way in the
> final log message; I am deliberately being detailed here to help me
> understand what you really mean)?
>
> A test in t3203 was expecting that branch-two sorts before HEAD,
> which happened to be how qsort(3) on Linux sorted the array, but
> (1) that outcome was not even guaranteed, and (2) once we start
> breaking ties with the refname, "HEAD" should sort before
> "branch-two" so the original expectation was inconsistent with
> the criterion we now use.
>

Exactly what you're saying, they happened to have the same objectsize.
Hence sorting them would put them together, but since we compare the
refname's the "HEAD" ref would come before "branch-two".

> Update it to match the new world order, which we can now depend
> on being stable.
>
> I am not sure about "HEAD" and "branch-two" in the above (it may be
> comparison between "HEAD" and "refs/heads/branch-two", for example).
>

It actually is, we consider "refs/heads/branch-two rather then the shortened
version of this. It makes sense to classify refs this way, even though this
was a side effect of this commit.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v3] ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison

[Junio C Hamano]

Karthik Nayak  writes:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
>>> Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname
>>> whenever the other criterion is equal. Fix the test in t3203 in this
>>> regard.
>>
>> It is unclear what "in this regard" is.  Do you mean this (I am not
>> suggesting you to spell these out in a very detailed way in the
>> final log message; I am deliberately being detailed here to help me
>> understand what you really mean)?
>>
>> A test in t3203 was expecting that branch-two sorts before HEAD,
>> which happened to be how qsort(3) on Linux sorted the array, but
>> (1) that outcome was not even guaranteed, and (2) once we start
>> breaking ties with the refname, "HEAD" should sort before
>> "branch-two" so the original expectation was inconsistent with
>> the criterion we now use.
>>
>
> Exactly what you're saying, they happened to have the same objectsize.
> Hence sorting them would put them together, but since we compare the
> refname's the "HEAD" ref would come before "branch-two".
>
>> Update it to match the new world order, which we can now depend
>> on being stable.
>>
>> I am not sure about "HEAD" and "branch-two" in the above (it may be
>> comparison between "HEAD" and "refs/heads/branch-two", for example).
>
> It actually is, we consider "refs/heads/branch-two rather then the shortened
> version of this. It makes sense to classify refs this way, even though this
> was a side effect of this commit.

Now these are enough bits of info, that can and needs to be
condenced into an updated log message to help future readers.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v3] ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison

[Junio C Hamano]

Karthik Nayak  writes:

> In ref-filter.c the comparison of refs while sorting is handled by
> cmp_ref_sorting() function. When sorting as per numerical values
> (e.g. --sort=objectsize) there is no fallback comparison when both
> refs hold the same value. This can cause unexpected results (i.e. the
> order of listing refs with equal values cannot be pre-determined) as
> pointed out by Johannes Sixt ($gmane/280117).

As we use qsort(), if two members compare as equal, their order in
the sorted array is undefined.  I think this is a good change.

> Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname
> whenever the other criterion is equal. Fix the test in t3203 in this
> regard.

It is unclear what "in this regard" is.  Do you mean this (I am not
suggesting you to spell these out in a very detailed way in the
final log message; I am deliberately being detailed here to help me
understand what you really mean)?

A test in t3203 was expecting that branch-two sorts before HEAD,
which happened to be how qsort(3) on Linux sorted the array, but
(1) that outcome was not even guaranteed, and (2) once we start
breaking ties with the refname, "HEAD" should sort before
"branch-two" so the original expectation was inconsistent with
the criterion we now use.

Update it to match the new world order, which we can now depend
on being stable.

I am not sure about "HEAD" and "branch-two" in the above (it may be
comparison between "HEAD" and "refs/heads/branch-two", for example).

> Reported-by: Johannes Sixt 
> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak 
> ---
>  ref-filter.c | 2 +-
>  t/t3203-branch-output.sh | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
> index 046e73b..7b33cb8 100644
> --- a/ref-filter.c
> +++ b/ref-filter.c
> @@ -1698,7 +1698,7 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, 
> struct ref_array_item *a, stru
>   if (va->ul < vb->ul)
>   cmp = -1;
>   else if (va->ul == vb->ul)
> - cmp = 0;
> + cmp = strcmp(a->refname, b->refname);
>   else
>   cmp = 1;
>   }
> diff --git a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
> index f77971c..9f2d482 100755
> --- a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
> +++ b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
> @@ -158,8 +158,8 @@ EOF
>  
>  test_expect_success 'git branch `--sort` option' '
>   cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> -   branch-two
>   * (HEAD detached from fromtag)
> +   branch-two
> branch-one
> master
>   EOF
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH v3] ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison

[Karthik Nayak]

In ref-filter.c the comparison of refs while sorting is handled by
cmp_ref_sorting() function. When sorting as per numerical values
(e.g. --sort=objectsize) there is no fallback comparison when both
refs hold the same value. This can cause unexpected results (i.e. the
order of listing refs with equal values cannot be pre-determined) as
pointed out by Johannes Sixt ($gmane/280117).

Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname
whenever the other criterion is equal. Fix the test in t3203 in this
regard.

Reported-by: Johannes Sixt 
Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak 
---
 ref-filter.c | 2 +-
 t/t3203-branch-output.sh | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
index 046e73b..7b33cb8 100644
--- a/ref-filter.c
+++ b/ref-filter.c
@@ -1698,7 +1698,7 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct 
ref_array_item *a, stru
if (va->ul < vb->ul)
cmp = -1;
else if (va->ul == vb->ul)
-   cmp = 0;
+   cmp = strcmp(a->refname, b->refname);
else
cmp = 1;
}
diff --git a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
index f77971c..9f2d482 100755
--- a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
+++ b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
@@ -158,8 +158,8 @@ EOF
 
 test_expect_success 'git branch `--sort` option' '
cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
- branch-two
* (HEAD detached from fromtag)
+ branch-two
  branch-one
  master
EOF
-- 
2.6.2

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html