bug?: git grep HEAD with exclude in pathspec not taken into account
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAGOLd-7Hi+tssj4ozKPd04squ-PuFwtt6f2nhbZp-zKwy62pVQ@mail.gmail.com
Hi,
I observed an unexpected behavior while using git grep with both git 2.19.1 and 2.14.3. Here is how to reproduce it:
Quoted 1 line
git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /private/tmp/hello/.git/
Quoted 4 lines
echo foo > fileA
echo 'foo is false+' > fileB
git add fileA
git commit -m fileA
[master (root-commit) f2c83e7] fileA
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 fileA
Quoted 2 lines
git add fileB
git commit -m fileB
[master e35df26] fileB
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 fileB
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileA'
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileB'
HEAD:fileA:foo
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+
In the last command, fileB appears in grep results but it should have been excluded.
If the HEAD parameter is removed, it works as expected:
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo -- ':!fileB'
fileA:foo
If giving the revision, it does not work either
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo e35df26 -- ':!fileB'
e35df26:fileA:foo
e35df26:fileB:foo is false+
The same behavior can be seen with git archive:
Quoted 1 line
git archive --verbose master ':(top)'
fileA
fileB pax_global_header00006660000000000000000000000064133641017230014512gustar00rootroot0000000000000052 comment=e35df26c65f3c0b303e78743496598b8b6a566e9 fileA000066400000000000000000000000041336410172300120130ustar00rootroot00000000000000foo fileB000066400000000000000000000000161336410172300120170ustar00rootroot00000000000000foo is false+
Quoted 1 line
/usr/local/bin/gitarchive --verbose master ':(top)' ':(exclude)fileA'
fileB pax_global_header00006660000000000000000000000064133641017230014512gustar00rootroot0000000000000052 comment=e35df26c65f3c0b303e78743496598b8b6a566e9 fileB000066400000000000000000000000161336410172300120170ustar00rootroot00000000000000foo is false+
Quoted 1 line
/usr/local/bin/gitarchive --verbose master ':(top)' ':(exclude)fileB'
fileA
fileB pax_global_header00006660000000000000000000000064133641017230014512gustar00rootroot0000000000000052 comment=e35df26c65f3c0b303e78743496598b8b6a566e9 fileA000066400000000000000000000000041336410172300120130ustar00rootroot00000000000000foo fileB000066400000000000000000000000161336410172300120170ustar00rootroot00000000000000foo is false+
fileA can be excluded, but not fileB.
Is it a bug?
Thanks
--
Christophe Bliard
Quoted 22 lines · Christophe Bliard
Hi,
I observed an unexpected behavior while using git grep with both git 2.19.1 and 2.14.3. Here is how to reproduce it:
Quoted 1 line
git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /private/tmp/hello/.git/
Quoted 4 lines
echo foo > fileA
echo 'foo is false+' > fileB
git add fileA
git commit -m fileA[master (root-commit) f2c83e7] fileA
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 fileAQuoted 2 lines
git add fileB
git commit -m fileB[master e35df26] fileB
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 fileBQuoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileA'
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileB'
HEAD:fileA:foo
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+In the last command, fileB appears in grep results but it should have been excluded.
If the HEAD parameter is removed, it works as expected:
It's probably a bug. We have different code paths for matching things with or without HEAD, roughly speaking. I'll look into to this more on the weekend, unless somebody (is welcome to) beats me first.
Another thing that might also be a problem is, negative patterns are supposed to exclude stuff from "something" but you don't specify that "something" (i.e. positive patterns) in your grep commands above. If "grep foo HEAD -- :/ ':!fileB'" works, then you probably just run into some undefined corner case.
Signature · 1 line
Duy
In fact, per https://github.com/git/git/commit/859b7f1d0e742493d2a9396794cd9040213ad846,
having only a negative pattern is like having a catch-all positive
pattern and the negative pattern (since git 2.13.0).
Thus, adding the positive pattern yields the same results:
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileA' .
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileB' .
HEAD:fileA:foo
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+
Quoted 45 lines · Duy Nguyen
Quoted 22 lines · Christophe Bliard
Hi,
I observed an unexpected behavior while using git grep with both git 2.19.1 and 2.14.3. Here is how to reproduce it:
Quoted 1 line
git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /private/tmp/hello/.git/
Quoted 4 lines
echo foo > fileA
echo 'foo is false+' > fileB
git add fileA
git commit -m fileA[master (root-commit) f2c83e7] fileA
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 fileAQuoted 2 lines
git add fileB
git commit -m fileB[master e35df26] fileB
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 fileBQuoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileA'
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
git --no-pager grep foo HEAD -- ':!fileB'
HEAD:fileA:foo
HEAD:fileB:foo is false+In the last command, fileB appears in grep results but it should have been excluded.
If the HEAD parameter is removed, it works as expected:
It's probably a bug. We have different code paths for matching things with or without HEAD, roughly speaking. I'll look into to this more on the weekend, unless somebody (is welcome to) beats me first.
Another thing that might also be a problem is, negative patterns are supposed to exclude stuff from "something" but you don't specify that "something" (i.e. positive patterns) in your grep commands above. If "grep foo HEAD -- :/ ':!fileB'" works, then you probably just run into some undefined corner case.
--
Duy
Quoted 5 lines · Christophe Bliard
Hi,
I observed an unexpected behavior while using git grep with both git 2.19.1 and 2.14.3.
Quick note. I confirm this is a bug in tree_entry_interesting() perhaps being over-optimistic. It'll take me more time to familiarize myself with this negative matching in the function before I come up with a fix for it. Thanks for reporting.
Signature · 1 line
Duy
PATCH 1/1 tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
In reply to Christophe Bliardtree_entry_interesting() is used for matching pathspec on a tree. The interesting thing about this function is that, because the tree entries are known to be sorted, this function can return more than just "yes, matched" and "no, not matched". It can also say "yes, this entry is matched and so is the remaining entries in the tree".
This is where I made a mistake when matching exclude pathspec. For exclude pathspec, we do matching twice, one with positive patterns and one with negative ones, then a rule table is applied to determine the final "include or exclude" result. Note that "matched" does not necessarily mean include. For negative patterns, "matched" means exclude.
This particular rule is too eager to include everything. Rule 8 says that "if all entries are positively matched" and the current entry is not negatively matched (i.e. not excluded), then all entries are positively matched and therefore included. But this is not true. If the _current_ entry is not negatively matched, it does not mean the next one will not be and we cannot conclude right away that all remaining entries are positively matched and can be included.
Rules 8 and 18 are now updated to be less eager. We conclude that the current entry is positively matched and included. But we say nothing about remaining entries. tree_entry_interesting() will be called again for those entries where we will determine entries individually.
--- t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++ tree-walk.c | 11 ++++++++--- 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh +17 -0
@@ -194,4 +194,21 @@ test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' ' test_cmp expect actual ' +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' ' + git init case8 && + ( + cd case8 && + echo file >file1 && + echo file >file2 && + git add . && + git commit -m twofiles && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file2 >actual && + echo HEAD:file1 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file1 >actual && + echo HEAD:file2 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual + ) +' + test_done
tree-walk.c +8 -3
@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,* 5 | file | 1 | 1 | 0 * 6 | file | 1 | 2 | 0 * 7 | file | 2 | -1 | 2 -* 8 | file | 2 | 0 | 2 +* 8 | file | 2 | 0 | 1 * 9 | file | 2 | 1 | 0 * 10 | file | 2 | 2 | -1 * -----+-------+----------+----------+-------
@@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,* 15 | dir | 1 | 1 | 1 (*) * 16 | dir | 1 | 2 | 0 * 17 | dir | 2 | -1 | 2 -* 18 | dir | 2 | 0 | 2 +* 18 | dir | 2 | 0 | 1 * 19 | dir | 2 | 1 | 1 (*) * 20 | dir | 2 | 2 | -1 *
@@ -1134,7 +1134,12 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry, negative =do_match (entry, base, base_offset, ps,1 ); -/* #3, #4, #7, #8, #13, #14, #17, #18 */ +/* #8, #18 */ +if (positive == all_entries_interesting && + negative == entry_not_interesting) +return entry_interesting; + +/* #3, #4, #7, #13, #14, #17 */ if (negative <= entry_not_interesting)return positive;
Signature · 1 line
2.19.1.1005.gac84295441
Re: [PATCH] tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
Quoted 9 lines · Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Rules 8 and 18 are now updated to be less eager. We conclude that the current entry is positively matched and included. But we say nothing about remaining entries.
tree_entry_interesting()will be called again for those entries where we will determine entries individually.Signed-off-by Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <[email protected]>---
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' ' · line 200
Quoted 7 lines
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh +7
-0@@ -194,4 +194,21 @@ test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' ' +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' ' + git init case8 && + ( + cd case8 && + echo file >file1 && + echo file >file2 && + git add . &&
Won't this loose git-add invocation end up adding all the junk files from earlier tests? One might have expected to see the more restricted invocation:
git add file1 file2 &&
to make it easier to reason about the test and not worry about someone later inserting tests above this one which might interfere with it.
Quoted 9 lines
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh +9
-0+ git commit -m twofiles && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file2 >actual && + echo HEAD:file1 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file1 >actual && + echo HEAD:file2 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual + ) +'
Re: [PATCH] tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
Quoted 9 lines · Eric Sunshine
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' ' · line 203
Quoted 7 lines · Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh +7
-0+test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' ' + git init case8 && + ( + cd case8 && + echo file >file1 && + echo file >file2 && + git add . &&
Quoted 6 lines
Won't this loose git-add invocation end up adding all the junk files from earlier tests? One might have expected to see the more restricted invocation:
git add file1 file2 &&to make it easier to reason about the test and not worry about someone later inserting tests above this one which might interfere with it.
Upon reflection, there shouldn't be any junk files since this test is creating a new repository and "file1" and "file2" are the only files present. Apparently, I wasn't paying close enough attention when I made the earlier observation.
Anyhow, the more restricted git-add invocation you used in the re-roll is still preferable since it makes the intention obvious. Thanks.
Re: [PATCH] tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
Quoted 18 lines · Eric Sunshine
Quoted 9 lines · Eric Sunshine
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' ' · line 203
Quoted 7 lines · Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh +7
-0+test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' ' + git init case8 && + ( + cd case8 && + echo file >file1 && + echo file >file2 && + git add . &&Quoted 6 lines
Won't this loose git-add invocation end up adding all the junk files from earlier tests? One might have expected to see the more restricted invocation:
git add file1 file2 &&to make it easier to reason about the test and not worry about someone later inserting tests above this one which might interfere with it.
Quoted 4 lines
Upon reflection, there shouldn't be any junk files since this test is creating a new repository and "file1" and "file2" are the only files present. Apparently, I wasn't paying close enough attention when I made the earlier observation.
Yup.
Quoted 2 lines
Anyhow, the more restricted git-add invocation you used in the re-roll is still preferable since it makes the intention obvious. Thanks.
Which is why I did it anyway :)
Signature · 1 line
Duy
PATCH v2 1/1 tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
In reply to Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duytree_entry_interesting() is used for matching pathspec on a tree. The interesting thing about this function is that, because the tree entries are known to be sorted, this function can return more than just "yes, matched" and "no, not matched". It can also say "yes, this entry is matched and so is the remaining entries in the tree".
This is where I made a mistake when matching exclude pathspec. For exclude pathspec, we do matching twice, one with positive patterns and one with negative ones, then a rule table is applied to determine the final "include or exclude" result. Note that "matched" does not necessarily mean include. For negative patterns, "matched" means exclude.
This particular rule is too eager to include everything. Rule 8 says that "if all entries are positively matched" and the current entry is not negatively matched (i.e. not excluded), then all entries are positively matched and therefore included. But this is not true. If the _current_ entry is not negatively matched, it does not mean the next one will not be and we cannot conclude right away that all remaining entries are positively matched and can be included.
Rules 8 and 18 are now updated to be less eager. We conclude that the current entry is positively matched and included. But we say nothing about remaining entries. tree_entry_interesting() will be called again for those entries where we will determine entries individually.
---
v2 fixes the too broad "git add ." in the test
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++ tree-walk.c | 11 ++++++++--- 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh +17 -0
@@ -194,4 +194,21 @@ test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' ' test_cmp expect actual ' +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' ' + git init case8 && + ( + cd case8 && + echo file >file1 && + echo file >file2 && + git add file1 file2 && + git commit -m twofiles && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file2 >actual && + echo HEAD:file1 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file1 >actual && + echo HEAD:file2 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual + ) +' + test_done
tree-walk.c +8 -3
@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,* 5 | file | 1 | 1 | 0 * 6 | file | 1 | 2 | 0 * 7 | file | 2 | -1 | 2 -* 8 | file | 2 | 0 | 2 +* 8 | file | 2 | 0 | 1 * 9 | file | 2 | 1 | 0 * 10 | file | 2 | 2 | -1 * -----+-------+----------+----------+-------
@@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,* 15 | dir | 1 | 1 | 1 (*) * 16 | dir | 1 | 2 | 0 * 17 | dir | 2 | -1 | 2 -* 18 | dir | 2 | 0 | 2 +* 18 | dir | 2 | 0 | 1 * 19 | dir | 2 | 1 | 1 (*) * 20 | dir | 2 | 2 | -1 *
@@ -1134,7 +1134,12 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry, negative =do_match (entry, base, base_offset, ps,1 ); -/* #3, #4, #7, #8, #13, #14, #17, #18 */ +/* #8, #18 */ +if (positive == all_entries_interesting && + negative == entry_not_interesting) +return entry_interesting; + +/* #3, #4, #7, #13, #14, #17 */ if (negative <= entry_not_interesting)return positive;
Signature · 1 line
2.19.1.1005.gac84295441
Re: [PATCH v2] tree-walk.c: fix overoptimistic inclusion in :(exclude) matching
Quoted 21 lines · Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
tree_entry_interesting()is used for matching pathspec on a tree. The interesting thing about this function is that, because the tree entries are known to be sorted, this function can return more than just "yes, matched" and "no, not matched". It can also say "yes, this entry is matched and so is the remaining entries in the tree".This is where I made a mistake when matching exclude pathspec. For exclude pathspec, we do matching twice, one with positive patterns and one with negative ones, then a rule table is applied to determine the final "include or exclude" result. Note that "matched" does not necessarily mean include. For negative patterns, "matched" means exclude.
This particular rule is too eager to include everything. Rule 8 says that "if all entries are positively matched" and the current entry is not negatively matched (i.e. not excluded), then all entries are positively matched and therefore included. But this is not true. If the _current_ entry is not negatively matched, it does not mean the next one will not be and we cannot conclude right away that all remaining entries are positively matched and can be included.
Quoted 4 lines
Rules 8 and 18 are now updated to be less eager. We conclude that the current entry is positively matched and included. But we say nothing about remaining entries.
tree_entry_interesting()will be called again for those entries where we will determine entries individually.
Thanks. Will queue.
Quoted 70 lines
Reported-by Christophe Bliard <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <[email protected]>---
v2 fixes the too broad "git add ." in the testt/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++ tree-walk.c | 11 ++++++++--- 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)t/t6132-pathspec-exclude.sh +17
-0@@ -194,4 +194,21 @@ test_expect_success 'multiple exclusions' ' test_cmp expect actual ' +test_expect_success 't_e_i() exclude case #8' ' + git init case8 && + ( + cd case8 && + echo file >file1 && + echo file >file2 && + git add file1 file2 && + git commit -m twofiles && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file2 >actual && + echo HEAD:file1 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual && + git grep -l file HEAD :^file1 >actual && + echo HEAD:file2 >expected && + test_cmp expected actual + ) +' + test_donetree-walk.c +8
-3@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,* 5 | file | 1 | 1 | 0 * 6 | file | 1 | 2 | 0 * 7 | file | 2 | -1 | 2 -* 8 | file | 2 | 0 | 2 +* 8 | file | 2 | 0 | 1 * 9 | file | 2 | 1 | 0 * 10 | file | 2 | 2 | -1 * -----+-------+----------+----------+------- @@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry,* 15 | dir | 1 | 1 | 1 (*) * 16 | dir | 1 | 2 | 0 * 17 | dir | 2 | -1 | 2 -* 18 | dir | 2 | 0 | 2 +* 18 | dir | 2 | 0 | 1 * 19 | dir | 2 | 1 | 1 (*) * 20 | dir | 2 | 2 | -1 * @@ -1134,7 +1134,12 @@ enum interesting tree_entry_interesting(const struct name_entry *entry, negative =do_match (entry, base, base_offset, ps,1 ); -/* #3, #4, #7, #8, #13, #14, #17, #18 */ +/* #8, #18 */ +if (positive == all_entries_interesting && + negative == entry_not_interesting) +return entry_interesting; + +/* #3, #4, #7, #13, #14, #17 */ if (negative <= entry_not_interesting)return positive;