development/git
development/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git synced 2024-07-07 19:39:27 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
6b13bc3232
git/xdiff/xdiffi.c

1089 lines
28 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
/*
* LibXDiff by Davide Libenzi ( File Differential Library )
* Copyright (C) 2003 Davide Libenzi
*
* This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
* version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
*
* This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
* Lesser General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
Replace Free Software Foundation address in license notices The mailing address for the FSF has changed over the years. Rather than updating the address across all files, refer readers to gnu.org, as the GNU GPL documentation now suggests for license notices. The mailing address is retained in the full license files (COPYING and LGPL-2.1). The old address is still present in t/diff-lib/COPYING. This is intentional, as the file is used in tests and the contents are not expected to change. Signed-off-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-11-07 05:39:33 +00:00
* License along with this library; if not, see
* <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
*
* Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
*
*/
#include "xinclude.h"
#define XDL_MAX_COST_MIN 256
#define XDL_HEUR_MIN_COST 256
refactor: use bitsizeof() instead of 8 * sizeof() Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-07-22 21:34:34 +00:00
#define XDL_LINE_MAX (long)((1UL << (CHAR_BIT * sizeof(long) - 1)) - 1)
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
#define XDL_SNAKE_CNT 20
#define XDL_K_HEUR 4
typedef struct s_xdpsplit {
long i1, i2;
int min_lo, min_hi;
} xdpsplit_t;
/*
* See "An O(ND) Difference Algorithm and its Variations", by Eugene Myers.
* Basically considers a "box" (off1, off2, lim1, lim2) and scan from both
* the forward diagonal starting from (off1, off2) and the backward diagonal
* starting from (lim1, lim2). If the K values on the same diagonal crosses
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* returns the furthest point of reach. We might encounter expensive edge cases
* using this algorithm, so a little bit of heuristic is needed to cut the
* search and to return a suboptimal point.
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
*/
static long xdl_split(unsigned long const *ha1, long off1, long lim1,
unsigned long const *ha2, long off2, long lim2,
long *kvdf, long *kvdb, int need_min, xdpsplit_t *spl,
xdalgoenv_t *xenv) {
long dmin = off1 - lim2, dmax = lim1 - off2;
long fmid = off1 - off2, bmid = lim1 - lim2;
long odd = (fmid - bmid) & 1;
long fmin = fmid, fmax = fmid;
long bmin = bmid, bmax = bmid;
long ec, d, i1, i2, prev1, best, dd, v, k;
/*
* Set initial diagonal values for both forward and backward path.
*/
kvdf[fmid] = off1;
kvdb[bmid] = lim1;
for (ec = 1;; ec++) {
int got_snake = 0;
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* We need to extend the diagonal "domain" by one. If the next
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
* values exits the box boundaries we need to change it in the
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* opposite direction because (max - min) must be a power of
* two.
*
Fix more typos, primarily in the code The only visible change is that git-blame doesn't understand "--compability" anymore, but it does accept "--compatibility" instead, which is already documented. Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-07-10 05:50:18 +00:00
* Also we initialize the external K value to -1 so that we can
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* avoid extra conditions in the check inside the core loop.
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
*/
if (fmin > dmin)
kvdf[--fmin - 1] = -1;
else
++fmin;
if (fmax < dmax)
kvdf[++fmax + 1] = -1;
else
--fmax;
for (d = fmax; d >= fmin; d -= 2) {
if (kvdf[d - 1] >= kvdf[d + 1])
i1 = kvdf[d - 1] + 1;
else
i1 = kvdf[d + 1];
prev1 = i1;
i2 = i1 - d;
for (; i1 < lim1 && i2 < lim2 && ha1[i1] == ha2[i2]; i1++, i2++);
if (i1 - prev1 > xenv->snake_cnt)
got_snake = 1;
kvdf[d] = i1;
if (odd && bmin <= d && d <= bmax && kvdb[d] <= i1) {
spl->i1 = i1;
spl->i2 = i2;
spl->min_lo = spl->min_hi = 1;
return ec;
}
}
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* We need to extend the diagonal "domain" by one. If the next
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
* values exits the box boundaries we need to change it in the
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* opposite direction because (max - min) must be a power of
* two.
*
Fix more typos, primarily in the code The only visible change is that git-blame doesn't understand "--compability" anymore, but it does accept "--compatibility" instead, which is already documented. Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-07-10 05:50:18 +00:00
* Also we initialize the external K value to -1 so that we can
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* avoid extra conditions in the check inside the core loop.
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
*/
if (bmin > dmin)
kvdb[--bmin - 1] = XDL_LINE_MAX;
else
++bmin;
if (bmax < dmax)
kvdb[++bmax + 1] = XDL_LINE_MAX;
else
--bmax;
for (d = bmax; d >= bmin; d -= 2) {
if (kvdb[d - 1] < kvdb[d + 1])
i1 = kvdb[d - 1];
else
i1 = kvdb[d + 1] - 1;
prev1 = i1;
i2 = i1 - d;
for (; i1 > off1 && i2 > off2 && ha1[i1 - 1] == ha2[i2 - 1]; i1--, i2--);
if (prev1 - i1 > xenv->snake_cnt)
got_snake = 1;
kvdb[d] = i1;
if (!odd && fmin <= d && d <= fmax && i1 <= kvdf[d]) {
spl->i1 = i1;
spl->i2 = i2;
spl->min_lo = spl->min_hi = 1;
return ec;
}
}
if (need_min)
continue;
/*
* If the edit cost is above the heuristic trigger and if
* we got a good snake, we sample current diagonals to see
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* if some of them have reached an "interesting" path. Our
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
* measure is a function of the distance from the diagonal
* corner (i1 + i2) penalized with the distance from the
* mid diagonal itself. If this value is above the current
* edit cost times a magic factor (XDL_K_HEUR) we consider
* it interesting.
*/
if (got_snake && ec > xenv->heur_min) {
for (best = 0, d = fmax; d >= fmin; d -= 2) {
dd = d > fmid ? d - fmid: fmid - d;
i1 = kvdf[d];
i2 = i1 - d;
v = (i1 - off1) + (i2 - off2) - dd;
if (v > XDL_K_HEUR * ec && v > best &&
off1 + xenv->snake_cnt <= i1 && i1 < lim1 &&
off2 + xenv->snake_cnt <= i2 && i2 < lim2) {
for (k = 1; ha1[i1 - k] == ha2[i2 - k]; k++)
if (k == xenv->snake_cnt) {
best = v;
spl->i1 = i1;
spl->i2 = i2;
break;
}
}
}
if (best > 0) {
spl->min_lo = 1;
spl->min_hi = 0;
return ec;
}
for (best = 0, d = bmax; d >= bmin; d -= 2) {
dd = d > bmid ? d - bmid: bmid - d;
i1 = kvdb[d];
i2 = i1 - d;
v = (lim1 - i1) + (lim2 - i2) - dd;
if (v > XDL_K_HEUR * ec && v > best &&
off1 < i1 && i1 <= lim1 - xenv->snake_cnt &&
off2 < i2 && i2 <= lim2 - xenv->snake_cnt) {
for (k = 0; ha1[i1 + k] == ha2[i2 + k]; k++)
if (k == xenv->snake_cnt - 1) {
best = v;
spl->i1 = i1;
spl->i2 = i2;
break;
}
}
}
if (best > 0) {
spl->min_lo = 0;
spl->min_hi = 1;
return ec;
}
}
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* Enough is enough. We spent too much time here and now we
* collect the furthest reaching path using the (i1 + i2)
* measure.
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
*/
if (ec >= xenv->mxcost) {
long fbest, fbest1, bbest, bbest1;
xdiff/xdiffi.c: fix warnings about possibly uninitialized variables Compiling this module gave the following warnings (some double dutch!): xdiff/xdiffi.c: In functie 'xdl_recs_cmp': xdiff/xdiffi.c:298: let op: 'spl.i1' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:298: let op: 'spl.i2' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:219: let op: 'fbest1' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:219: let op: 'bbest1' may be used uninitialized in this function A superficial tracking of their usage, without deeper knowledge about the algorithm, indeed confirms that there are code paths on which these variables will be used uninitialized. In practice these code paths might never be reached, but then these fixes will not change the algorithm. If these code paths are ever reached we now at least have a predictable outcome. And should the very small performance impact of these initializations be noticeable, then they should at least be replaced by comments why certain code paths will never be reached. Some extra initializations in this patch now fix the warnings.
2006-04-08 15:27:20 +00:00
fbest = fbest1 = -1;
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
for (d = fmax; d >= fmin; d -= 2) {
i1 = XDL_MIN(kvdf[d], lim1);
i2 = i1 - d;
if (lim2 < i2)
i1 = lim2 + d, i2 = lim2;
if (fbest < i1 + i2) {
fbest = i1 + i2;
fbest1 = i1;
}
}
xdiff/xdiffi.c: fix warnings about possibly uninitialized variables Compiling this module gave the following warnings (some double dutch!): xdiff/xdiffi.c: In functie 'xdl_recs_cmp': xdiff/xdiffi.c:298: let op: 'spl.i1' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:298: let op: 'spl.i2' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:219: let op: 'fbest1' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:219: let op: 'bbest1' may be used uninitialized in this function A superficial tracking of their usage, without deeper knowledge about the algorithm, indeed confirms that there are code paths on which these variables will be used uninitialized. In practice these code paths might never be reached, but then these fixes will not change the algorithm. If these code paths are ever reached we now at least have a predictable outcome. And should the very small performance impact of these initializations be noticeable, then they should at least be replaced by comments why certain code paths will never be reached. Some extra initializations in this patch now fix the warnings.
2006-04-08 15:27:20 +00:00
bbest = bbest1 = XDL_LINE_MAX;
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
for (d = bmax; d >= bmin; d -= 2) {
i1 = XDL_MAX(off1, kvdb[d]);
i2 = i1 - d;
if (i2 < off2)
i1 = off2 + d, i2 = off2;
if (i1 + i2 < bbest) {
bbest = i1 + i2;
bbest1 = i1;
}
}
if ((lim1 + lim2) - bbest < fbest - (off1 + off2)) {
spl->i1 = fbest1;
spl->i2 = fbest - fbest1;
spl->min_lo = 1;
spl->min_hi = 0;
} else {
spl->i1 = bbest1;
spl->i2 = bbest - bbest1;
spl->min_lo = 0;
spl->min_hi = 1;
}
return ec;
}
}
}
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* Rule: "Divide et Impera" (divide & conquer). Recursively split the box in
* sub-boxes by calling the box splitting function. Note that the real job
* (marking changed lines) is done in the two boundary reaching checks.
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
*/
int xdl_recs_cmp(diffdata_t *dd1, long off1, long lim1,
diffdata_t *dd2, long off2, long lim2,
long *kvdf, long *kvdb, int need_min, xdalgoenv_t *xenv) {
unsigned long const *ha1 = dd1->ha, *ha2 = dd2->ha;
/*
* Shrink the box by walking through each diagonal snake (SW and NE).
*/
for (; off1 < lim1 && off2 < lim2 && ha1[off1] == ha2[off2]; off1++, off2++);
for (; off1 < lim1 && off2 < lim2 && ha1[lim1 - 1] == ha2[lim2 - 1]; lim1--, lim2--);
/*
* If one dimension is empty, then all records on the other one must
* be obviously changed.
*/
if (off1 == lim1) {
char *rchg2 = dd2->rchg;
long *rindex2 = dd2->rindex;
for (; off2 < lim2; off2++)
rchg2[rindex2[off2]] = 1;
} else if (off2 == lim2) {
char *rchg1 = dd1->rchg;
long *rindex1 = dd1->rindex;
for (; off1 < lim1; off1++)
rchg1[rindex1[off1]] = 1;
} else {
xdpsplit_t spl;
xdiff/xdiffi.c: fix warnings about possibly uninitialized variables Compiling this module gave the following warnings (some double dutch!): xdiff/xdiffi.c: In functie 'xdl_recs_cmp': xdiff/xdiffi.c:298: let op: 'spl.i1' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:298: let op: 'spl.i2' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:219: let op: 'fbest1' may be used uninitialized in this function xdiff/xdiffi.c:219: let op: 'bbest1' may be used uninitialized in this function A superficial tracking of their usage, without deeper knowledge about the algorithm, indeed confirms that there are code paths on which these variables will be used uninitialized. In practice these code paths might never be reached, but then these fixes will not change the algorithm. If these code paths are ever reached we now at least have a predictable outcome. And should the very small performance impact of these initializations be noticeable, then they should at least be replaced by comments why certain code paths will never be reached. Some extra initializations in this patch now fix the warnings.
2006-04-08 15:27:20 +00:00
spl.i1 = spl.i2 = 0;
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
/*
* Divide ...
*/
Fix various dead stores found by the clang static analyzer http-push.c::finish_request(): request is initialized by the for loop index-pack.c::free_base_data(): b is initialized by the for loop merge-recursive.c::process_renames(): move compare to narrower scope, and remove unused assignments to it remove unused variable renames2 xdiff/xdiffi.c::xdl_recs_cmp(): remove unused variable ec xdiff/xemit.c::xdl_emit_diff(): xche is always overwritten Signed-off-by: Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra@googlemail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-03-15 21:01:20 +00:00
if (xdl_split(ha1, off1, lim1, ha2, off2, lim2, kvdf, kvdb,
need_min, &spl, xenv) < 0) {
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
return -1;
}
/*
* ... et Impera.
*/
if (xdl_recs_cmp(dd1, off1, spl.i1, dd2, off2, spl.i2,
kvdf, kvdb, spl.min_lo, xenv) < 0 ||
xdl_recs_cmp(dd1, spl.i1, lim1, dd2, spl.i2, lim2,
kvdf, kvdb, spl.min_hi, xenv) < 0) {
return -1;
}
}
return 0;
}
int xdl_do_diff(mmfile_t *mf1, mmfile_t *mf2, xpparam_t const *xpp,
xdfenv_t *xe) {
long ndiags;
long *kvd, *kvdf, *kvdb;
xdalgoenv_t xenv;
diffdata_t dd1, dd2;
xdiff: PATIENCE/HISTOGRAM are not independent option bits Because the default Myers, patience and histogram algorithms cannot be in effect at the same time, XDL_PATIENCE_DIFF and XDL_HISTOGRAM_DIFF are not independent bits. Instead of wasting one bit per algorithm, define a few macros to access the few bits they occupy and update the code that access them. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-02-19 23:36:55 +00:00
if (XDF_DIFF_ALG(xpp->flags) == XDF_PATIENCE_DIFF)
Implement the patience diff algorithm The patience diff algorithm produces slightly more intuitive output than the classic Myers algorithm, as it does not try to minimize the number of +/- lines first, but tries to preserve the lines that are unique. To this end, it first determines lines that are unique in both files, then the maximal sequence which preserves the order (relative to both files) is extracted. Starting from this initial set of common lines, the rest of the lines is handled recursively, with Myers' algorithm as a fallback when the patience algorithm fails (due to no common unique lines). This patch includes memory leak fixes by Pierre Habouzit. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-01-07 17:04:09 +00:00
return xdl_do_patience_diff(mf1, mf2, xpp, xe);
xdiff: PATIENCE/HISTOGRAM are not independent option bits Because the default Myers, patience and histogram algorithms cannot be in effect at the same time, XDL_PATIENCE_DIFF and XDL_HISTOGRAM_DIFF are not independent bits. Instead of wasting one bit per algorithm, define a few macros to access the few bits they occupy and update the code that access them. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-02-19 23:36:55 +00:00
if (XDF_DIFF_ALG(xpp->flags) == XDF_HISTOGRAM_DIFF)
teach --histogram to diff Port JGit's HistogramDiff algorithm over to C. Rough numbers (TODO) show that it is faster than its --patience cousin, as well as the default Meyers algorithm. The implementation has been reworked to use structs and pointers, instead of bitmasks, thus doing away with JGit's 2^28 line limit. We also use xdiff's default hash table implementation (xdl_hash_bits() with XDL_HASHLONG()) for convenience. Signed-off-by: Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2011-07-12 06:10:25 +00:00
return xdl_do_histogram_diff(mf1, mf2, xpp, xe);
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
if (xdl_prepare_env(mf1, mf2, xpp, xe) < 0) {
return -1;
}
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* Allocate and setup K vectors to be used by the differential
* algorithm.
*
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
* One is to store the forward path and one to store the backward path.
*/
ndiags = xe->xdf1.nreff + xe->xdf2.nreff + 3;
if (!(kvd = (long *) xdl_malloc((2 * ndiags + 2) * sizeof(long)))) {
xdl_free_env(xe);
return -1;
}
kvdf = kvd;
kvdb = kvdf + ndiags;
kvdf += xe->xdf2.nreff + 1;
kvdb += xe->xdf2.nreff + 1;
Clean-up trivially redundant diff. Also corrects the line numbers in unified output when using zero lines context.
2006-04-04 01:47:55 +00:00
xenv.mxcost = xdl_bogosqrt(ndiags);
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
if (xenv.mxcost < XDL_MAX_COST_MIN)
xenv.mxcost = XDL_MAX_COST_MIN;
xenv.snake_cnt = XDL_SNAKE_CNT;
xenv.heur_min = XDL_HEUR_MIN_COST;
dd1.nrec = xe->xdf1.nreff;
dd1.ha = xe->xdf1.ha;
dd1.rchg = xe->xdf1.rchg;
dd1.rindex = xe->xdf1.rindex;
dd2.nrec = xe->xdf2.nreff;
dd2.ha = xe->xdf2.ha;
dd2.rchg = xe->xdf2.rchg;
dd2.rindex = xe->xdf2.rindex;
if (xdl_recs_cmp(&dd1, 0, dd1.nrec, &dd2, 0, dd2.nrec,
kvdf, kvdb, (xpp->flags & XDF_NEED_MINIMAL) != 0, &xenv) < 0) {
xdl_free(kvd);
xdl_free_env(xe);
return -1;
}
xdl_free(kvd);
return 0;
}
static xdchange_t *xdl_add_change(xdchange_t *xscr, long i1, long i2, long chg1, long chg2) {
xdchange_t *xch;
if (!(xch = (xdchange_t *) xdl_malloc(sizeof(xdchange_t))))
return NULL;
xch->next = xscr;
xch->i1 = i1;
xch->i2 = i2;
xch->chg1 = chg1;
xch->chg2 = chg2;
diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option The goal of the patch is to introduce the GNU diff -B/--ignore-blank-lines as closely as possible. The short option is not available because it's already used for "break-rewrites". When this option is used, git-diff will not create hunks that simply add or remove empty lines, but will still show empty lines addition/suppression if they are close enough to "valuable" changes. There are two differences between this option and GNU diff -B option: - GNU diff doesn't have "--inter-hunk-context", so this must be handled - The following sequence looks like a bug (context is displayed twice): $ seq 5 >file1 $ cat <<EOF >file2 change 1 2 3 4 5 change EOF $ diff -u -B file1 file2 --- file1 2013-06-08 22:13:04.471517834 +0200 +++ file2 2013-06-08 22:13:23.275517855 +0200 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ +change 1 2 + 3 4 5 @@ -3,3 +5,4 @@ 3 4 5 +change So here is a more thorough description of the option: - real changes are interesting - blank lines that are close enough (less than context size) to interesting changes are considered interesting (recursive definition) - "context" lines are used around each hunk of interesting changes - If two hunks are separated by less than "inter-hunk-context", they will be merged into one. The implementation does the "interesting changes selection" in a single pass. Signed-off-by: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-19 18:46:07 +00:00
xch->ignore = 0;
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
return xch;
}
recs_match(): take two xrecord_t pointers as arguments There is no reason for it to take an array and two indexes as argument, as it only accesses two elements of the array. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:43 +00:00
static int recs_match(xrecord_t *rec1, xrecord_t *rec2, long flags)
xdiff: add recs_match helper function It is a common pattern in xdl_change_compact to check that hashes and strings match. The resulting code to perform this change causes very long lines and makes it hard to follow the intention. Introduce a helper function recs_match which performs both checks to increase code readability. Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-04-15 23:01:45 +00:00
{
xdiff: simplify comparison Now that the histogram algorithm calls xdl_classify_record() it is no longer necessary to use xdl_recmatch() to compare lines, it is sufficient just to compare the hash values. This has a negligible effect on performance. Test HEAD~1 HEAD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4000.1: log -3000 (baseline) 0.19(0.12+0.07) 0.18(0.14+0.04) -5.3% 4000.2: log --raw -3000 (tree-only) 0.98(0.81+0.16) 0.98(0.79+0.18) +0.0% 4000.3: log -p -3000 (Myers) 4.81(4.23+0.56) 4.80(4.26+0.53) -0.2% 4000.4: log -p -3000 --histogram 5.83(5.11+0.70) 5.82(5.15+0.65) -0.2% 4000.5: log -p -3000 --patience 5.31(4.61+0.69) 5.30(4.54+0.75) -0.2% Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-11-17 11:20:25 +00:00
return (rec1->ha == rec2->ha);
xdiff: add recs_match helper function It is a common pattern in xdl_change_compact to check that hashes and strings match. The resulting code to perform this change causes very long lines and makes it hard to follow the intention. Introduce a helper function recs_match which performs both checks to increase code readability. Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-04-15 23:01:45 +00:00
}
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
/*
* If a line is indented more than this, get_indent() just returns this value.
* This avoids having to do absurd amounts of work for data that are not
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* human-readable text, and also ensures that the output of get_indent fits
* within an int.
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*/
#define MAX_INDENT 200
/*
* Return the amount of indentation of the specified line, treating TAB as 8
* columns. Return -1 if line is empty or contains only whitespace. Clamp the
* output value at MAX_INDENT.
*/
static int get_indent(xrecord_t *rec)
{
long i;
int ret = 0;
for (i = 0; i < rec->size; i++) {
char c = rec->ptr[i];
if (!XDL_ISSPACE(c))
return ret;
else if (c == ' ')
ret += 1;
else if (c == '\t')
ret += 8 - ret % 8;
/* ignore other whitespace characters */
if (ret >= MAX_INDENT)
return MAX_INDENT;
}
/* The line contains only whitespace. */
return -1;
}
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* If more than this number of consecutive blank rows are found, just return
* this value. This avoids requiring O(N^2) work for pathological cases, and
* also ensures that the output of score_split fits in an int.
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*/
#define MAX_BLANKS 20
/* Characteristics measured about a hypothetical split position. */
struct split_measurement {
/*
* Is the split at the end of the file (aside from any blank lines)?
*/
int end_of_file;
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* How much is the line immediately following the split indented (or -1
* if the line is blank):
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*/
int indent;
/*
* How many consecutive lines above the split are blank?
*/
int pre_blank;
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* How much is the nearest non-blank line above the split indented (or
* -1 if there is no such line)?
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*/
int pre_indent;
/*
* How many lines after the line following the split are blank?
*/
int post_blank;
/*
* How much is the nearest non-blank line after the line following the
* split indented (or -1 if there is no such line)?
*/
int post_indent;
};
struct split_score {
/* The effective indent of this split (smaller is preferred). */
int effective_indent;
/* Penalty for this split (smaller is preferred). */
int penalty;
};
/*
* Fill m with information about a hypothetical split of xdf above line split.
*/
static void measure_split(const xdfile_t *xdf, long split,
struct split_measurement *m)
{
long i;
if (split >= xdf->nrec) {
m->end_of_file = 1;
m->indent = -1;
} else {
m->end_of_file = 0;
m->indent = get_indent(xdf->recs[split]);
}
m->pre_blank = 0;
m->pre_indent = -1;
for (i = split - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
m->pre_indent = get_indent(xdf->recs[i]);
if (m->pre_indent != -1)
break;
m->pre_blank += 1;
if (m->pre_blank == MAX_BLANKS) {
m->pre_indent = 0;
break;
}
}
m->post_blank = 0;
m->post_indent = -1;
for (i = split + 1; i < xdf->nrec; i++) {
m->post_indent = get_indent(xdf->recs[i]);
if (m->post_indent != -1)
break;
m->post_blank += 1;
if (m->post_blank == MAX_BLANKS) {
m->post_indent = 0;
break;
}
}
}
/*
* The empirically-determined weight factors used by score_split() below.
* Larger values means that the position is a less favorable place to split.
*
* Note that scores are only ever compared against each other, so multiplying
* all of these weight/penalty values by the same factor wouldn't change the
* heuristic's behavior. Still, we need to set that arbitrary scale *somehow*.
* In practice, these numbers are chosen to be large enough that they can be
* adjusted relative to each other with sufficient precision despite using
* integer math.
*/
/* Penalty if there are no non-blank lines before the split */
#define START_OF_FILE_PENALTY 1
/* Penalty if there are no non-blank lines after the split */
#define END_OF_FILE_PENALTY 21
/* Multiplier for the number of blank lines around the split */
#define TOTAL_BLANK_WEIGHT (-30)
/* Multiplier for the number of blank lines after the split */
#define POST_BLANK_WEIGHT 6
/*
* Penalties applied if the line is indented more than its predecessor
*/
#define RELATIVE_INDENT_PENALTY (-4)
#define RELATIVE_INDENT_WITH_BLANK_PENALTY 10
/*
* Penalties applied if the line is indented less than both its predecessor and
* its successor
*/
#define RELATIVE_OUTDENT_PENALTY 24
#define RELATIVE_OUTDENT_WITH_BLANK_PENALTY 17
/*
* Penalties applied if the line is indented less than its predecessor but not
* less than its successor
*/
#define RELATIVE_DEDENT_PENALTY 23
#define RELATIVE_DEDENT_WITH_BLANK_PENALTY 17
/*
* We only consider whether the sum of the effective indents for splits are
* less than (-1), equal to (0), or greater than (+1) each other. The resulting
* value is multiplied by the following weight and combined with the penalty to
* determine the better of two scores.
*/
#define INDENT_WEIGHT 60
xdiff: reduce indent heuristic overhead Skip searching for better indentation heuristics if we'd slide a hunk more than its size. This is the easiest fix proposed in the analysis[1] in response to a patch that mercurial took for xdiff to limit searching by a constant. Using a performance test as: #!python open('a', 'w').write(" \n" * 1000000) open('b', 'w').write(" \n" * 1000001) This patch reduces the execution of "git diff --no-index a b" from 0.70s to 0.31s. However limiting the sliding to the size of the diff hunk, which was proposed as a solution (that I found easiest to implement for now) is not optimal for cases like open('a', 'w').write(" \n" * 1000000) open('b', 'w').write(" \n" * 2000000) as then we'd still slide 1000000 times. In addition to limiting the sliding to size of the hunk, also limit by a constant. Choose 100 lines as the constant as that fits more than a screen, which really means that the diff sliding is probably not providing a lot of benefit anyway. [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/72ac1ac2-f567-f241-41d6-d0f83072e0b3@alum.mit.edu/ Reported-by: Jun Wu <quark@fb.com> Analysis-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-27 22:23:56 +00:00
/*
* How far do we slide a hunk at most?
*/
#define INDENT_HEURISTIC_MAX_SLIDING 100
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
/*
* Compute a badness score for the hypothetical split whose measurements are
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* stored in m. The weight factors were determined empirically using the tools
* and corpus described in
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*
* https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools
*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* Also see that project if you want to improve the weights based on, for
* example, a larger or more diverse corpus.
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*/
static void score_add_split(const struct split_measurement *m, struct split_score *s)
{
/*
* A place to accumulate penalty factors (positive makes this index more
* favored):
*/
int post_blank, total_blank, indent, any_blanks;
if (m->pre_indent == -1 && m->pre_blank == 0)
s->penalty += START_OF_FILE_PENALTY;
if (m->end_of_file)
s->penalty += END_OF_FILE_PENALTY;
/*
* Set post_blank to the number of blank lines following the split,
* including the line immediately after the split:
*/
post_blank = (m->indent == -1) ? 1 + m->post_blank : 0;
total_blank = m->pre_blank + post_blank;
/* Penalties based on nearby blank lines: */
s->penalty += TOTAL_BLANK_WEIGHT * total_blank;
s->penalty += POST_BLANK_WEIGHT * post_blank;
if (m->indent != -1)
indent = m->indent;
else
indent = m->post_indent;
any_blanks = (total_blank != 0);
/* Note that the effective indent is -1 at the end of the file: */
s->effective_indent += indent;
if (indent == -1) {
/* No additional adjustments needed. */
} else if (m->pre_indent == -1) {
/* No additional adjustments needed. */
} else if (indent > m->pre_indent) {
/*
* The line is indented more than its predecessor.
*/
s->penalty += any_blanks ?
RELATIVE_INDENT_WITH_BLANK_PENALTY :
RELATIVE_INDENT_PENALTY;
} else if (indent == m->pre_indent) {
/*
* The line has the same indentation level as its predecessor.
* No additional adjustments needed.
*/
} else {
/*
* The line is indented less than its predecessor. It could be
* the block terminator of the previous block, but it could
* also be the start of a new block (e.g., an "else" block, or
* maybe the previous block didn't have a block terminator).
* Try to distinguish those cases based on what comes next:
*/
if (m->post_indent != -1 && m->post_indent > indent) {
/*
* The following line is indented more. So it is likely
* that this line is the start of a block.
*/
s->penalty += any_blanks ?
RELATIVE_OUTDENT_WITH_BLANK_PENALTY :
RELATIVE_OUTDENT_PENALTY;
} else {
/*
* That was probably the end of a block.
*/
s->penalty += any_blanks ?
RELATIVE_DEDENT_WITH_BLANK_PENALTY :
RELATIVE_DEDENT_PENALTY;
}
}
}
static int score_cmp(struct split_score *s1, struct split_score *s2)
{
/* -1 if s1.effective_indent < s2->effective_indent, etc. */
int cmp_indents = ((s1->effective_indent > s2->effective_indent) -
(s1->effective_indent < s2->effective_indent));
return INDENT_WEIGHT * cmp_indents + (s1->penalty - s2->penalty);
}
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
/*
* Represent a group of changed lines in an xdfile_t (i.e., a contiguous group
* of lines that was inserted or deleted from the corresponding version of the
* file). We consider there to be such a group at the beginning of the file, at
* the end of the file, and between any two unchanged lines, though most such
* groups will usually be empty.
*
* If the first line in a group is equal to the line following the group, then
* the group can be slid down. Similarly, if the last line in a group is equal
* to the line preceding the group, then the group can be slid up. See
* group_slide_down() and group_slide_up().
*
* Note that loops that are testing for changed lines in xdf->rchg do not need
* index bounding since the array is prepared with a zero at position -1 and N.
*/
xdiff: rename "struct group" to "struct xdlgroup" Commit e8adf23 (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22) added a "struct group" type to xdiff/xdiffi.c. But the POSIX system header "grp.h" already defines "struct group" (it is part of the getgrnam interface). This happens to work because the new type is local to xdiffi.c, and the xdiff code includes a relatively small set of system headers. But it will break compilation if xdiff ever switches to using git-compat-util.h. It can also probably cause confusion with tools that look at the whole code base, like coccinelle or ctags. Let's resolve by giving the xdiff variant a scoped name, which is closer to other xdiff types anyway (e.g., xdlfile_t, though note that xdiff is fond if typedefs when Git usually is not). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-27 04:37:33 +00:00
struct xdlgroup {
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
/*
* The index of the first changed line in the group, or the index of
* the unchanged line above which the (empty) group is located.
*/
long start;
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
/*
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
* The index of the first unchanged line after the group. For an empty
* group, end is equal to start.
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
*/
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
long end;
};
/*
* Initialize g to point at the first group in xdf.
*/
xdiff: rename "struct group" to "struct xdlgroup" Commit e8adf23 (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22) added a "struct group" type to xdiff/xdiffi.c. But the POSIX system header "grp.h" already defines "struct group" (it is part of the getgrnam interface). This happens to work because the new type is local to xdiffi.c, and the xdiff code includes a relatively small set of system headers. But it will break compilation if xdiff ever switches to using git-compat-util.h. It can also probably cause confusion with tools that look at the whole code base, like coccinelle or ctags. Let's resolve by giving the xdiff variant a scoped name, which is closer to other xdiff types anyway (e.g., xdlfile_t, though note that xdiff is fond if typedefs when Git usually is not). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-27 04:37:33 +00:00
static void group_init(xdfile_t *xdf, struct xdlgroup *g)
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
{
g->start = g->end = 0;
while (xdf->rchg[g->end])
g->end++;
}
/*
* Move g to describe the next (possibly empty) group in xdf and return 0. If g
* is already at the end of the file, do nothing and return -1.
*/
xdiff: rename "struct group" to "struct xdlgroup" Commit e8adf23 (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22) added a "struct group" type to xdiff/xdiffi.c. But the POSIX system header "grp.h" already defines "struct group" (it is part of the getgrnam interface). This happens to work because the new type is local to xdiffi.c, and the xdiff code includes a relatively small set of system headers. But it will break compilation if xdiff ever switches to using git-compat-util.h. It can also probably cause confusion with tools that look at the whole code base, like coccinelle or ctags. Let's resolve by giving the xdiff variant a scoped name, which is closer to other xdiff types anyway (e.g., xdlfile_t, though note that xdiff is fond if typedefs when Git usually is not). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-27 04:37:33 +00:00
static inline int group_next(xdfile_t *xdf, struct xdlgroup *g)
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
{
if (g->end == xdf->nrec)
return -1;
g->start = g->end + 1;
for (g->end = g->start; xdf->rchg[g->end]; g->end++)
;
return 0;
}
/*
* Move g to describe the previous (possibly empty) group in xdf and return 0.
* If g is already at the beginning of the file, do nothing and return -1.
*/
xdiff: rename "struct group" to "struct xdlgroup" Commit e8adf23 (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22) added a "struct group" type to xdiff/xdiffi.c. But the POSIX system header "grp.h" already defines "struct group" (it is part of the getgrnam interface). This happens to work because the new type is local to xdiffi.c, and the xdiff code includes a relatively small set of system headers. But it will break compilation if xdiff ever switches to using git-compat-util.h. It can also probably cause confusion with tools that look at the whole code base, like coccinelle or ctags. Let's resolve by giving the xdiff variant a scoped name, which is closer to other xdiff types anyway (e.g., xdlfile_t, though note that xdiff is fond if typedefs when Git usually is not). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-27 04:37:33 +00:00
static inline int group_previous(xdfile_t *xdf, struct xdlgroup *g)
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
{
if (g->start == 0)
return -1;
g->end = g->start - 1;
for (g->start = g->end; xdf->rchg[g->start - 1]; g->start--)
;
return 0;
}
/*
* If g can be slid toward the end of the file, do so, and if it bumps into a
* following group, expand this group to include it. Return 0 on success or -1
* if g cannot be slid down.
*/
xdiff: rename "struct group" to "struct xdlgroup" Commit e8adf23 (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22) added a "struct group" type to xdiff/xdiffi.c. But the POSIX system header "grp.h" already defines "struct group" (it is part of the getgrnam interface). This happens to work because the new type is local to xdiffi.c, and the xdiff code includes a relatively small set of system headers. But it will break compilation if xdiff ever switches to using git-compat-util.h. It can also probably cause confusion with tools that look at the whole code base, like coccinelle or ctags. Let's resolve by giving the xdiff variant a scoped name, which is closer to other xdiff types anyway (e.g., xdlfile_t, though note that xdiff is fond if typedefs when Git usually is not). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-27 04:37:33 +00:00
static int group_slide_down(xdfile_t *xdf, struct xdlgroup *g, long flags)
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
{
if (g->end < xdf->nrec &&
recs_match(xdf->recs[g->start], xdf->recs[g->end], flags)) {
xdf->rchg[g->start++] = 0;
xdf->rchg[g->end++] = 1;
while (xdf->rchg[g->end])
g->end++;
return 0;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
/*
* If g can be slid toward the beginning of the file, do so, and if it bumps
* into a previous group, expand this group to include it. Return 0 on success
* or -1 if g cannot be slid up.
*/
xdiff: rename "struct group" to "struct xdlgroup" Commit e8adf23 (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22) added a "struct group" type to xdiff/xdiffi.c. But the POSIX system header "grp.h" already defines "struct group" (it is part of the getgrnam interface). This happens to work because the new type is local to xdiffi.c, and the xdiff code includes a relatively small set of system headers. But it will break compilation if xdiff ever switches to using git-compat-util.h. It can also probably cause confusion with tools that look at the whole code base, like coccinelle or ctags. Let's resolve by giving the xdiff variant a scoped name, which is closer to other xdiff types anyway (e.g., xdlfile_t, though note that xdiff is fond if typedefs when Git usually is not). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-27 04:37:33 +00:00
static int group_slide_up(xdfile_t *xdf, struct xdlgroup *g, long flags)
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
{
if (g->start > 0 &&
recs_match(xdf->recs[g->start - 1], xdf->recs[g->end - 1], flags)) {
xdf->rchg[--g->start] = 1;
xdf->rchg[--g->end] = 0;
while (xdf->rchg[g->start - 1])
g->start--;
return 0;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
/*
* Move back and forward change groups for a consistent and pretty diff output.
* This also helps in finding joinable change groups and reducing the diff
* size.
*/
int xdl_change_compact(xdfile_t *xdf, xdfile_t *xdfo, long flags) {
xdiff: rename "struct group" to "struct xdlgroup" Commit e8adf23 (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22) added a "struct group" type to xdiff/xdiffi.c. But the POSIX system header "grp.h" already defines "struct group" (it is part of the getgrnam interface). This happens to work because the new type is local to xdiffi.c, and the xdiff code includes a relatively small set of system headers. But it will break compilation if xdiff ever switches to using git-compat-util.h. It can also probably cause confusion with tools that look at the whole code base, like coccinelle or ctags. Let's resolve by giving the xdiff variant a scoped name, which is closer to other xdiff types anyway (e.g., xdlfile_t, though note that xdiff is fond if typedefs when Git usually is not). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-27 04:37:33 +00:00
struct xdlgroup g, go;
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
long earliest_end, end_matching_other;
long groupsize;
group_init(xdf, &g);
group_init(xdfo, &go);
while (1) {
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
/*
* If the group is empty in the to-be-compacted file, skip it:
*/
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
if (g.end == g.start)
goto next;
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
/*
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
* Now shift the change up and then down as far as possible in
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* each direction. If it bumps into any other changes, merge
* them.
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
*/
do {
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
groupsize = g.end - g.start;
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
/*
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
* Keep track of the last "end" index that causes this
* group to align with a group of changed lines in the
* other file. -1 indicates that we haven't found such
* a match yet:
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
*/
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
end_matching_other = -1;
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
/* Shift the group backward as much as possible: */
while (!group_slide_up(xdf, &g, flags))
if (group_previous(xdfo, &go))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("group sync broken sliding up");
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
/*
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
* This is this highest that this group can be shifted.
* Record its end index:
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
*/
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
earliest_end = g.end;
if (go.end > go.start)
end_matching_other = g.end;
/* Now shift the group forward as far as possible: */
while (1) {
if (group_slide_down(xdf, &g, flags))
break;
if (group_next(xdfo, &go))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("group sync broken sliding down");
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
if (go.end > go.start)
end_matching_other = g.end;
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
}
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
} while (groupsize != g.end - g.start);
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
/*
* If the group can be shifted, then we can possibly use this
* freedom to produce a more intuitive diff.
*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* The group is currently shifted as far down as possible, so
* the heuristics below only have to handle upwards shifts.
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*/
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
if (g.end == earliest_end) {
/* no shifting was possible */
} else if (end_matching_other != -1) {
xdl_change_compact(): only use heuristic if group can't be matched If the changed group of lines can be matched to a group in the other file, then that positioning should take precedence over the compaction heuristic. The old code tried the heuristic unconditionally, which cost redundant effort and also was broken if the matching code had already shifted the group higher than the blank line. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:41 +00:00
/*
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* Move the possibly merged group of changes back to
* line up with the last group of changes from the
* other file that it can align with.
xdl_change_compact(): only use heuristic if group can't be matched If the changed group of lines can be matched to a group in the other file, then that positioning should take precedence over the compaction heuristic. The old code tried the heuristic unconditionally, which cost redundant effort and also was broken if the matching code had already shifted the group higher than the blank line. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:41 +00:00
*/
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
while (go.end == go.start) {
if (group_slide_up(xdf, &g, flags))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("match disappeared");
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
if (group_previous(xdfo, &go))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("group sync broken sliding to match");
xdl_change_compact(): only use heuristic if group can't be matched If the changed group of lines can be matched to a group in the other file, then that positioning should take precedence over the compaction heuristic. The old code tried the heuristic unconditionally, which cost redundant effort and also was broken if the matching code had already shifted the group higher than the blank line. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:41 +00:00
}
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
} else if (flags & XDF_INDENT_HEURISTIC) {
/*
* Indent heuristic: a group of pure add/delete lines
xdiffi: fix typos and touch up comments Inspired by the thoroughly stale https://github.com/git/git/pull/159, this patch fixes a couple of typos, rewraps and clarifies some comments. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-08 18:27:52 +00:00
* implies two splits, one between the end of the
* "before" context and the start of the group, and
* another between the end of the group and the
* beginning of the "after" context. Some splits are
* aesthetically better and some are worse. We compute
* a badness "score" for each split, and add the scores
* for the two splits to define a "score" for each
* position that the group can be shifted to. Then we
* pick the shift with the lowest score.
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
*/
long shift, best_shift = -1;
struct split_score best_score;
xdiff: reduce indent heuristic overhead Skip searching for better indentation heuristics if we'd slide a hunk more than its size. This is the easiest fix proposed in the analysis[1] in response to a patch that mercurial took for xdiff to limit searching by a constant. Using a performance test as: #!python open('a', 'w').write(" \n" * 1000000) open('b', 'w').write(" \n" * 1000001) This patch reduces the execution of "git diff --no-index a b" from 0.70s to 0.31s. However limiting the sliding to the size of the diff hunk, which was proposed as a solution (that I found easiest to implement for now) is not optimal for cases like open('a', 'w').write(" \n" * 1000000) open('b', 'w').write(" \n" * 2000000) as then we'd still slide 1000000 times. In addition to limiting the sliding to size of the hunk, also limit by a constant. Choose 100 lines as the constant as that fits more than a screen, which really means that the diff sliding is probably not providing a lot of benefit anyway. [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/72ac1ac2-f567-f241-41d6-d0f83072e0b3@alum.mit.edu/ Reported-by: Jun Wu <quark@fb.com> Analysis-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-27 22:23:56 +00:00
shift = earliest_end;
if (g.end - groupsize - 1 > shift)
shift = g.end - groupsize - 1;
if (g.end - INDENT_HEURISTIC_MAX_SLIDING > shift)
shift = g.end - INDENT_HEURISTIC_MAX_SLIDING;
for (; shift <= g.end; shift++) {
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
struct split_measurement m;
struct split_score score = {0, 0};
measure_split(xdf, shift, &m);
score_add_split(&m, &score);
measure_split(xdf, shift - groupsize, &m);
score_add_split(&m, &score);
if (best_shift == -1 ||
score_cmp(&score, &best_score) <= 0) {
best_score.effective_indent = score.effective_indent;
best_score.penalty = score.penalty;
best_shift = shift;
}
}
while (g.end > best_shift) {
if (group_slide_up(xdf, &g, flags))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("best shift unreached");
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
if (group_previous(xdfo, &go))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("group sync broken sliding to blank line");
diff: improve positioning of add/delete blocks in diffs Some groups of added/deleted lines in diffs can be slid up or down, because lines at the edges of the group are not unique. Picking good shifts for such groups is not a matter of correctness but definitely has a big effect on aesthetics. For example, consider the following two diffs. The first is what standard Git emits: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { } if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} +if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { $smtp_server = $_; The following diff is equivalent, but is obviously preferable from an aesthetic point of view: --- a/9c572b21dd090a1e5c5bb397053bf8043ffe7fb4:git-send-email.perl +++ b/6dcfa306f2b67b733a7eb2d7ded1bc9987809edb:git-send-email.perl @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ if (!defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/(^\s+|\s+$)//g; } +if (!$smtp_server) { + $smtp_server = $repo->config('sendemail.smtpserver'); +} if (!$smtp_server) { foreach (qw( /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail )) { if (-x $_) { This patch teaches Git to pick better positions for such "diff sliders" using heuristics that take the positions of nearby blank lines and the indentation of nearby lines into account. The existing Git code basically always shifts such "sliders" as far down in the file as possible. The only exception is when the slider can be aligned with a group of changed lines in the other file, in which case Git favors depicting the change as one add+delete block rather than one add and a slightly offset delete block. This naive algorithm often yields ugly diffs. Commit d634d61ed6 improved the situation somewhat by preferring to position add/delete groups to make their last line a blank line, when that is possible. This heuristic does more good than harm, but (1) it can only help if there are blank lines in the right places, and (2) always picks the last blank line, even if there are others that might be better. The end result is that it makes perhaps 1/3 as many errors as the default Git algorithm, but that still leaves a lot of ugly diffs. This commit implements a new and much better heuristic for picking optimal "slider" positions using the following approach: First observe that each hypothetical positioning of a diff slider introduces two splits: one between the context lines preceding the group and the first added/deleted line, and the other between the last added/deleted line and the first line of context following it. It tries to find the positioning that creates the least bad splits. Splits are evaluated based only on the presence and locations of nearby blank lines, and the indentation of lines near the split. Basically, it prefers to introduce splits adjacent to blank lines, between lines that are indented less, and between lines with the same level of indentation. In more detail: 1. It measures the following characteristics of a proposed splitting position in a `struct split_measurement`: * the number of blank lines above the proposed split * whether the line directly after the split is blank * the number of blank lines following that line * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line above the split * the indentation of the line directly below the split * the indentation of the nearest non-blank line after that line 2. It combines the measured attributes using a bunch of empirically-optimized weighting factors to derive a `struct split_score` that measures the "badness" of splitting the text at that position. 3. It combines the `split_score` for the top and the bottom of the slider at each of its possible positions, and selects the position that has the best `split_score`. I determined the initial set of weighting factors by collecting a corpus of Git histories from 29 open-source software projects in various programming languages. I generated many diffs from this corpus, and determined the best positioning "by eye" for about 6600 diff sliders. I used about half of the repositories in the corpus (corresponding to about 2/3 of the sliders) as a training set, and optimized the weights against this corpus using a crude automated search of the parameter space to get the best agreement with the manually-determined values. Then I tested the resulting heuristic against the full corpus. The results are summarized in the following table, in column `indent-1`: | repository | count | Git 2.9.0 | compaction | compaction-fixed | indent-1 | indent-2 | | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | afnetworking | 109 | 89 (81.7%) | 37 (33.9%) | 37 (33.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | | alamofire | 30 | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (46.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | angular | 184 | 127 (69.0%) | 39 (21.2%) | 23 (12.5%) | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (2.7%) | | animate | 313 | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | 2 (0.6%) | | ant | 380 | 356 (93.7%) | 152 (40.0%) | 148 (38.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | 15 (3.9%) | * | bugzilla | 306 | 263 (85.9%) | 109 (35.6%) | 99 (32.4%) | 14 (4.6%) | 15 (4.9%) | * | corefx | 126 | 91 (72.2%) | 22 (17.5%) | 21 (16.7%) | 6 (4.8%) | 6 (4.8%) | | couchdb | 78 | 44 (56.4%) | 26 (33.3%) | 28 (35.9%) | 6 (7.7%) | 6 (7.7%) | * | cpython | 937 | 158 (16.9%) | 50 (5.3%) | 49 (5.2%) | 5 (0.5%) | 5 (0.5%) | * | discourse | 160 | 95 (59.4%) | 42 (26.2%) | 36 (22.5%) | 18 (11.2%) | 13 (8.1%) | | docker | 307 | 194 (63.2%) | 198 (64.5%) | 253 (82.4%) | 8 (2.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | * | electron | 163 | 132 (81.0%) | 38 (23.3%) | 39 (23.9%) | 6 (3.7%) | 6 (3.7%) | | git | 536 | 470 (87.7%) | 73 (13.6%) | 78 (14.6%) | 16 (3.0%) | 16 (3.0%) | * | gitflow | 127 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | ionic | 133 | 89 (66.9%) | 29 (21.8%) | 38 (28.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | | ipython | 482 | 362 (75.1%) | 167 (34.6%) | 169 (35.1%) | 11 (2.3%) | 11 (2.3%) | * | junit | 161 | 147 (91.3%) | 67 (41.6%) | 66 (41.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | * | lighttable | 15 | 5 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | magit | 88 | 75 (85.2%) | 11 (12.5%) | 9 (10.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | | neural-style | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | nodejs | 781 | 649 (83.1%) | 118 (15.1%) | 111 (14.2%) | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (0.6%) | * | phpmyadmin | 491 | 481 (98.0%) | 75 (15.3%) | 48 (9.8%) | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.4%) | * | react-native | 168 | 130 (77.4%) | 79 (47.0%) | 81 (48.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | | rust | 171 | 128 (74.9%) | 30 (17.5%) | 27 (15.8%) | 16 (9.4%) | 14 (8.2%) | | spark | 186 | 149 (80.1%) | 52 (28.0%) | 52 (28.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 2 (1.1%) | | tensorflow | 115 | 66 (57.4%) | 48 (41.7%) | 48 (41.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | 5 (4.3%) | | test-more | 19 | 15 (78.9%) | 2 (10.5%) | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.3%) | * | test-unit | 51 | 34 (66.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | 8 (15.7%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | * | xmonad | 23 | 22 (95.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 2 (8.7%) | 1 (4.3%) | 1 (4.3%) | * | --------------------- | ----- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | totals | 6668 | 4391 (65.9%) | 1496 (22.4%) | 1491 (22.4%) | 150 (2.2%) | 144 (2.2%) | | totals (training set) | 4552 | 3195 (70.2%) | 1053 (23.1%) | 1061 (23.3%) | 86 (1.9%) | 88 (1.9%) | | totals (test set) | 2116 | 1196 (56.5%) | 443 (20.9%) | 430 (20.3%) | 64 (3.0%) | 56 (2.6%) | In this table, the numbers are the count and percentage of human-rated sliders that the corresponding algorithm got *wrong*. The columns are * "repository" - the name of the repository used. I used the diffs between successive non-merge commits on the HEAD branch of the corresponding repository. * "count" - the number of sliders that were human-rated. I chose most, but not all, sliders to rate from those among which the various algorithms gave different answers. * "Git 2.9.0" - the default algorithm used by `git diff` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` in Git 2.9.0. * "compaction-fixed" - the heuristic used by `git diff --compaction-heuristic` after the fixes from earlier in this patch series. Note that the results are not dramatically different than those for "compaction". Both produce non-ideal diffs only about 1/3 as often as the default `git diff`. * "indent-1" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the first set of weighting factors, determined as described above. * "indent-2" - the new `--indent-heuristic` algorithm, using the final set of weighting factors, determined as described below. * `*` - indicates that repo was part of training set used to determine the first set of weighting factors. The fact that the heuristic performed nearly as well on the test set as on the training set in column "indent-1" is a good indication that the heuristic was not over-trained. Given that fact, I ran a second round of optimization, using the entire corpus as the training set. The resulting set of weights gave the results in column "indent-2". These are the weights included in this patch. The final result gives consistently and significantly better results across the whole corpus than either `git diff` or `git diff --compaction-heuristic`. It makes only about 1/30 as many errors as the former and about 1/10 as many errors as the latter. (And a good fraction of the remaining errors are for diffs that involve weirdly-formatted code, sometimes apparently machine-generated.) The tools that were used to do this optimization and analysis, along with the human-generated data values, are recorded in a separate project [1]. This patch adds a new command-line option `--indent-heuristic`, and a new configuration setting `diff.indentHeuristic`, that activate this heuristic. This interface is only meant for testing purposes, and should be finalized before including this change in any release. [1] https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-05 09:44:51 +00:00
}
xdiff: implement empty line chunk heuristic In order to produce the smallest possible diff and combine several diff hunks together, we implement a heuristic from GNU Diff which moves diff hunks forward as far as possible when we find common context above and below a diff hunk. This sometimes produces less readable diffs when writing C, Shell, or other programming languages, ie: ... /* + * + * + */ + +/* ... instead of the more readable equivalent of ... +/* + * + * + */ + /* ... Implement the following heuristic to (optionally) produce the desired output. If there are diff chunks which can be shifted around, shift each hunk such that the last common empty line is below the chunk with the rest of the context above. This heuristic appears to resolve the above example and several other common issues without producing significantly weird results. However, as with any heuristic it is not really known whether this will always be more optimal. Thus, it can be disabled via diff.compactionHeuristic. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-04-19 15:21:30 +00:00
}
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
next:
/* Move past the just-processed group: */
if (group_next(xdf, &g))
break;
if (group_next(xdfo, &go))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("group sync broken moving to next group");
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
}
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
if (!group_next(xdfo, &go))
xdiff: use BUG(...), not xdl_bug(...) The xdl_bug() function was introduced in e8adf23d1e (xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group, 2016-08-22), let's use our usual BUG() function instead. We'll now have meaningful line numbers if we encounter bugs in xdiff, and less code duplication. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-07 16:43:49 +00:00
BUG("group sync broken at end of file");
xdl_change_compact(): introduce the concept of a change group The idea of xdl_change_compact() is fairly simple: * Proceed through groups of changed lines in the file to be compacted, keeping track of the corresponding location in the "other" file. * If possible, slide the group up and down to try to give the most aesthetically pleasing diff. Whenever it is slid, the current location in the other file needs to be adjusted. But these simple concepts are obfuscated by a lot of index handling that is written in terse, subtle, and varied patterns. I found it very hard to convince myself that the function was correct. So introduce a "struct group" that represents a group of changed lines in a file. Add some functions that perform elementary operations on groups: * Initialize a group to the first group in a file * Move to the next or previous group in a file * Slide a group up or down Even though the resulting code is longer, I think it is easier to understand and review. Its performance is not changed appreciably (though it would be if `group_next()` and `group_previous()` were not inlined). ...and in fact, the rewriting helped me discover another bug in the --compaction-heuristic code: The update of blank_lines was never done for the highest possible position of the group. This means that it could fail to slide the group to its highest possible position, even if that position had a blank line as its last line. So for example, it yielded the following diff: $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 A + +B + +A 2 when in fact the following diff is better (according to the rules of --compaction-heuristic): $ git diff --no-index --compaction-heuristic a.txt b.txt diff --git a/a.txt b/b.txt index e53969f..0d60c5fe 100644 --- a/a.txt +++ b/b.txt @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ 1 +A + +B + A 2 The new code gives the bottom answer. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-22 11:22:44 +00:00
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
return 0;
}
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
int xdl_build_script(xdfenv_t *xe, xdchange_t **xscr) {
xdchange_t *cscr = NULL, *xch;
char *rchg1 = xe->xdf1.rchg, *rchg2 = xe->xdf2.rchg;
long i1, i2, l1, l2;
/*
* Trivial. Collects "groups" of changes and creates an edit script.
*/
for (i1 = xe->xdf1.nrec, i2 = xe->xdf2.nrec; i1 >= 0 || i2 >= 0; i1--, i2--)
if (rchg1[i1 - 1] || rchg2[i2 - 1]) {
for (l1 = i1; rchg1[i1 - 1]; i1--);
for (l2 = i2; rchg2[i2 - 1]; i2--);
if (!(xch = xdl_add_change(cscr, i1, i2, l1 - i1, l2 - i2))) {
xdl_free_script(cscr);
return -1;
}
cscr = xch;
}
*xscr = cscr;
return 0;
}
void xdl_free_script(xdchange_t *xscr) {
xdchange_t *xch;
while ((xch = xscr) != NULL) {
xscr = xscr->next;
xdl_free(xch);
}
}
xdiff: add hunk_func() Add a way to register a callback function that is gets passed the start line and line count of each hunk of a diff. Only standard types are used. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-05-09 20:20:55 +00:00
static int xdl_call_hunk_func(xdfenv_t *xe, xdchange_t *xscr, xdemitcb_t *ecb,
xdemitconf_t const *xecfg)
{
xdchange_t *xch, *xche;
for (xch = xscr; xch; xch = xche->next) {
diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option The goal of the patch is to introduce the GNU diff -B/--ignore-blank-lines as closely as possible. The short option is not available because it's already used for "break-rewrites". When this option is used, git-diff will not create hunks that simply add or remove empty lines, but will still show empty lines addition/suppression if they are close enough to "valuable" changes. There are two differences between this option and GNU diff -B option: - GNU diff doesn't have "--inter-hunk-context", so this must be handled - The following sequence looks like a bug (context is displayed twice): $ seq 5 >file1 $ cat <<EOF >file2 change 1 2 3 4 5 change EOF $ diff -u -B file1 file2 --- file1 2013-06-08 22:13:04.471517834 +0200 +++ file2 2013-06-08 22:13:23.275517855 +0200 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ +change 1 2 + 3 4 5 @@ -3,3 +5,4 @@ 3 4 5 +change So here is a more thorough description of the option: - real changes are interesting - blank lines that are close enough (less than context size) to interesting changes are considered interesting (recursive definition) - "context" lines are used around each hunk of interesting changes - If two hunks are separated by less than "inter-hunk-context", they will be merged into one. The implementation does the "interesting changes selection" in a single pass. Signed-off-by: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-19 18:46:07 +00:00
xche = xdl_get_hunk(&xch, xecfg);
if (!xch)
break;
xdiff: add hunk_func() Add a way to register a callback function that is gets passed the start line and line count of each hunk of a diff. Only standard types are used. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-05-09 20:20:55 +00:00
if (xecfg->hunk_func(xch->i1, xche->i1 + xche->chg1 - xch->i1,
xch->i2, xche->i2 + xche->chg2 - xch->i2,
ecb->priv) < 0)
return -1;
}
return 0;
}
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
diff: add -I<regex> that ignores matching changes Add a new diff option that enables ignoring changes whose all lines (changed, removed, and added) match a given regular expression. This is similar to the -I/--ignore-matching-lines option in standalone diff utilities and can be used e.g. to ignore changes which only affect code comments or to look for unrelated changes in commits containing a large number of automatically applied modifications (e.g. a tree-wide string replacement). The difference between -G/-S and the new -I option is that the latter filters output on a per-change basis. Use the 'ignore' field of xdchange_t for marking a change as ignored or not. Since the same field is used by --ignore-blank-lines, identical hunk emitting rules apply for --ignore-blank-lines and -I. These two options can also be used together in the same git invocation (they are complementary to each other). Rename xdl_mark_ignorable() to xdl_mark_ignorable_lines(), to indicate that it is logically a "sibling" of xdl_mark_ignorable_regex() rather than its "parent". Signed-off-by: Michał Kępień <michal@isc.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-10-20 06:48:09 +00:00
static void xdl_mark_ignorable_lines(xdchange_t *xscr, xdfenv_t *xe, long flags)
diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option The goal of the patch is to introduce the GNU diff -B/--ignore-blank-lines as closely as possible. The short option is not available because it's already used for "break-rewrites". When this option is used, git-diff will not create hunks that simply add or remove empty lines, but will still show empty lines addition/suppression if they are close enough to "valuable" changes. There are two differences between this option and GNU diff -B option: - GNU diff doesn't have "--inter-hunk-context", so this must be handled - The following sequence looks like a bug (context is displayed twice): $ seq 5 >file1 $ cat <<EOF >file2 change 1 2 3 4 5 change EOF $ diff -u -B file1 file2 --- file1 2013-06-08 22:13:04.471517834 +0200 +++ file2 2013-06-08 22:13:23.275517855 +0200 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ +change 1 2 + 3 4 5 @@ -3,3 +5,4 @@ 3 4 5 +change So here is a more thorough description of the option: - real changes are interesting - blank lines that are close enough (less than context size) to interesting changes are considered interesting (recursive definition) - "context" lines are used around each hunk of interesting changes - If two hunks are separated by less than "inter-hunk-context", they will be merged into one. The implementation does the "interesting changes selection" in a single pass. Signed-off-by: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-19 18:46:07 +00:00
{
xdchange_t *xch;
for (xch = xscr; xch; xch = xch->next) {
int ignore = 1;
xrecord_t **rec;
long i;
rec = &xe->xdf1.recs[xch->i1];
for (i = 0; i < xch->chg1 && ignore; i++)
ignore = xdl_blankline(rec[i]->ptr, rec[i]->size, flags);
rec = &xe->xdf2.recs[xch->i2];
for (i = 0; i < xch->chg2 && ignore; i++)
ignore = xdl_blankline(rec[i]->ptr, rec[i]->size, flags);
xch->ignore = ignore;
}
}
diff: add -I<regex> that ignores matching changes Add a new diff option that enables ignoring changes whose all lines (changed, removed, and added) match a given regular expression. This is similar to the -I/--ignore-matching-lines option in standalone diff utilities and can be used e.g. to ignore changes which only affect code comments or to look for unrelated changes in commits containing a large number of automatically applied modifications (e.g. a tree-wide string replacement). The difference between -G/-S and the new -I option is that the latter filters output on a per-change basis. Use the 'ignore' field of xdchange_t for marking a change as ignored or not. Since the same field is used by --ignore-blank-lines, identical hunk emitting rules apply for --ignore-blank-lines and -I. These two options can also be used together in the same git invocation (they are complementary to each other). Rename xdl_mark_ignorable() to xdl_mark_ignorable_lines(), to indicate that it is logically a "sibling" of xdl_mark_ignorable_regex() rather than its "parent". Signed-off-by: Michał Kępień <michal@isc.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-10-20 06:48:09 +00:00
static int record_matches_regex(xrecord_t *rec, xpparam_t const *xpp) {
regmatch_t regmatch;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < xpp->ignore_regex_nr; i++)
if (!regexec_buf(xpp->ignore_regex[i], rec->ptr, rec->size, 1,
&regmatch, 0))
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void xdl_mark_ignorable_regex(xdchange_t *xscr, const xdfenv_t *xe,
xpparam_t const *xpp)
{
xdchange_t *xch;
for (xch = xscr; xch; xch = xch->next) {
xrecord_t **rec;
int ignore = 1;
long i;
/*
* Do not override --ignore-blank-lines.
*/
if (xch->ignore)
continue;
rec = &xe->xdf1.recs[xch->i1];
for (i = 0; i < xch->chg1 && ignore; i++)
ignore = record_matches_regex(rec[i], xpp);
rec = &xe->xdf2.recs[xch->i2];
for (i = 0; i < xch->chg2 && ignore; i++)
ignore = record_matches_regex(rec[i], xpp);
xch->ignore = ignore;
}
}
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
int xdl_diff(mmfile_t *mf1, mmfile_t *mf2, xpparam_t const *xpp,
xdemitconf_t const *xecfg, xdemitcb_t *ecb) {
xdchange_t *xscr;
xdfenv_t xe;
xdiff: remove emit_func() and xdi_diff_hunks() The functions are unused now, remove them. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-05-09 20:24:34 +00:00
emit_func_t ef = xecfg->hunk_func ? xdl_call_hunk_func : xdl_emit_diff;
xdiff: add hunk_func() Add a way to register a callback function that is gets passed the start line and line count of each hunk of a diff. Only standard types are used. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-05-09 20:20:55 +00:00
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
if (xdl_do_diff(mf1, mf2, xpp, &xe) < 0) {
return -1;
}
Teach diff about -b and -w flags This adds -b (--ignore-space-change) and -w (--ignore-all-space) flags to diff. The main part of the patch is teaching libxdiff about it. [jc: renamed xdl_line_match() to xdl_recmatch() since the former is used for different purposes in xpatchi.c which is in the parts of the upstream source we do not use.] Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-06-14 15:40:23 +00:00
if (xdl_change_compact(&xe.xdf1, &xe.xdf2, xpp->flags) < 0 ||
xdl_change_compact(&xe.xdf2, &xe.xdf1, xpp->flags) < 0 ||
xdiff: post-process hunks to make them consistent.
2006-04-13 23:45:13 +00:00
xdl_build_script(&xe, &xscr) < 0) {
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
xdl_free_env(&xe);
return -1;
}
if (xscr) {
diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option The goal of the patch is to introduce the GNU diff -B/--ignore-blank-lines as closely as possible. The short option is not available because it's already used for "break-rewrites". When this option is used, git-diff will not create hunks that simply add or remove empty lines, but will still show empty lines addition/suppression if they are close enough to "valuable" changes. There are two differences between this option and GNU diff -B option: - GNU diff doesn't have "--inter-hunk-context", so this must be handled - The following sequence looks like a bug (context is displayed twice): $ seq 5 >file1 $ cat <<EOF >file2 change 1 2 3 4 5 change EOF $ diff -u -B file1 file2 --- file1 2013-06-08 22:13:04.471517834 +0200 +++ file2 2013-06-08 22:13:23.275517855 +0200 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ +change 1 2 + 3 4 5 @@ -3,3 +5,4 @@ 3 4 5 +change So here is a more thorough description of the option: - real changes are interesting - blank lines that are close enough (less than context size) to interesting changes are considered interesting (recursive definition) - "context" lines are used around each hunk of interesting changes - If two hunks are separated by less than "inter-hunk-context", they will be merged into one. The implementation does the "interesting changes selection" in a single pass. Signed-off-by: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-19 18:46:07 +00:00
if (xpp->flags & XDF_IGNORE_BLANK_LINES)
diff: add -I<regex> that ignores matching changes Add a new diff option that enables ignoring changes whose all lines (changed, removed, and added) match a given regular expression. This is similar to the -I/--ignore-matching-lines option in standalone diff utilities and can be used e.g. to ignore changes which only affect code comments or to look for unrelated changes in commits containing a large number of automatically applied modifications (e.g. a tree-wide string replacement). The difference between -G/-S and the new -I option is that the latter filters output on a per-change basis. Use the 'ignore' field of xdchange_t for marking a change as ignored or not. Since the same field is used by --ignore-blank-lines, identical hunk emitting rules apply for --ignore-blank-lines and -I. These two options can also be used together in the same git invocation (they are complementary to each other). Rename xdl_mark_ignorable() to xdl_mark_ignorable_lines(), to indicate that it is logically a "sibling" of xdl_mark_ignorable_regex() rather than its "parent". Signed-off-by: Michał Kępień <michal@isc.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-10-20 06:48:09 +00:00
xdl_mark_ignorable_lines(xscr, &xe, xpp->flags);
if (xpp->ignore_regex)
xdl_mark_ignorable_regex(xscr, &xe, xpp);
diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option The goal of the patch is to introduce the GNU diff -B/--ignore-blank-lines as closely as possible. The short option is not available because it's already used for "break-rewrites". When this option is used, git-diff will not create hunks that simply add or remove empty lines, but will still show empty lines addition/suppression if they are close enough to "valuable" changes. There are two differences between this option and GNU diff -B option: - GNU diff doesn't have "--inter-hunk-context", so this must be handled - The following sequence looks like a bug (context is displayed twice): $ seq 5 >file1 $ cat <<EOF >file2 change 1 2 3 4 5 change EOF $ diff -u -B file1 file2 --- file1 2013-06-08 22:13:04.471517834 +0200 +++ file2 2013-06-08 22:13:23.275517855 +0200 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ +change 1 2 + 3 4 5 @@ -3,3 +5,4 @@ 3 4 5 +change So here is a more thorough description of the option: - real changes are interesting - blank lines that are close enough (less than context size) to interesting changes are considered interesting (recursive definition) - "context" lines are used around each hunk of interesting changes - If two hunks are separated by less than "inter-hunk-context", they will be merged into one. The implementation does the "interesting changes selection" in a single pass. Signed-off-by: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-19 18:46:07 +00:00
Allow alternate "low-level" emit function from xdl_diff For some users (e.g. git blame), getting textual patch output is just extra work, as they can get all the information they need from the low- level diff structures. Allow for an alternate low-level emit function to be defined to allow bypassing the textual patch generation; set xemitconf_t's emit_func member to enable this. The (void (*)()) type is pretty ugly, but the alternative would be to include most of the private xdiff headers in xdiff.h to get the types required for the "proper" function prototype. Also, a (void *) won't work, as ANSI C doesn't allow a function pointer to be cast to an object pointer. Signed-off-by: Brian Downing <bdowning@lavos.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-10-25 13:30:54 +00:00
if (ef(&xe, xscr, ecb, xecfg) < 0) {
Use a *real* built-in diff generator This uses a simplified libxdiff setup to generate unified diffs _without_ doing fork/execve of GNU "diff". This has several huge advantages, for example: Before: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m24.818s user 0m13.332s sys 0m8.664s After: [torvalds@g5 linux]$ time git diff v2.6.16.. > /dev/null real 0m4.563s user 0m2.944s sys 0m1.580s and the fact that this should be a lot more portable (ie we can ignore all the issues with doing fork/execve under Windows). Perhaps even more importantly, this allows us to do diffs without actually ever writing out the git file contents to a temporary file (and without any of the shell quoting issues on filenames etc etc). NOTE! THIS PATCH DOES NOT DO THAT OPTIMIZATION YET! I was lazy, and the current "diff-core" code actually will always write the temp-files, because it used to be something that you simply had to do. So this current one actually writes a temp-file like before, and then reads it into memory again just to do the diff. Stupid. But if this basic infrastructure is accepted, we can start switching over diff-core to not write temp-files, which should speed things up even further, especially when doing big tree-to-tree diffs. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also point out a few downsides: - the libxdiff algorithm is different, and I bet GNU diff has gotten a lot more testing. And the thing is, generating a diff is not an exact science - you can get two different diffs (and you will), and they can both be perfectly valid. So it's not possible to "validate" the libxdiff output by just comparing it against GNU diff. - GNU diff does some nice eye-candy, like trying to figure out what the last function was, and adding that information to the "@@ .." line. libxdiff doesn't do that. - The libxdiff thing has some known deficiencies. In particular, it gets the "\No newline at end of file" case wrong. So this is currently for the experimental branch only. I hope Davide will help fix it. That said, I think the huge performance advantage, and the fact that it integrates better is definitely worth it. But it should go into a development branch at least due to the missing newline issue. Technical note: this is based on libxdiff-0.17, but I did some surgery to get rid of the extraneous fat - stuff that git doesn't need, and seriously cutting down on mmfile_t, which had much more capabilities than the diff algorithm either needed or used. In this version, "mmfile_t" is just a trivial <pointer,length> tuple. That said, I tried to keep the differences to simple removals, so that you can do a diff between this and the libxdiff origin, and you'll basically see just things getting deleted. Even the mmfile_t simplifications are left in a state where the diffs should be readable. Apologies to Davide, whom I'd love to get feedback on this all from (I wrote my own "fill_mmfile()" for the new simpler mmfile_t format: the old complex format had a helper function for that, but I did my surgery with the goal in mind that eventually we _should_ just do mmfile_t mf; buf = read_sha1_file(sha1, type, &size); mf->ptr = buf; mf->size = size; .. use "mf" directly .. which was really a nightmare with the old "helpful" mmfile_t, and really is that easy with the new cut-down interfaces). [ Btw, as any hawk-eye can see from the diff, this was actually generated with itself, so it is "self-hosting". That's about all the testing it has gotten, along with the above kernel diff, which eye-balls correctly, but shows the newline issue when you double-check it with "git-apply" ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-03-25 04:13:22 +00:00
xdl_free_script(xscr);
xdl_free_env(&xe);
return -1;
}
xdl_free_script(xscr);
}
xdl_free_env(&xe);
return 0;
}
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink