Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] t4001: add a test comparing basename similarity and content similarity

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:15 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> >
> > Add a simple test where a removed file is similar to two different added
> > files; one of them has the same basename, and the other has a slightly
> > higher content similarity.  Without break detection, filename similarity
> > of 100% trumps content similarity for pairing up related files.  For
> > any filename similarity less than 100%, the opposite is true -- content
> > similarity is all that matters.  Add a testcase that documents this.
>
> I am not sure why it is the "opposite".  When contents are similar
> to the same degree of 100%, we tiebreak with the filename.  We never
> favor a pair between the same filename over a pair between different
> filenames with better content similarity.

This is not true.  If src/main.c is 99% similar to src/foo.c, and is
0% similar to the src/main.c in the new commit, we match the old
src/main.c to the new src/main.c despite being far more similar
src/foo.c.  Unless break detection is turned on, we do not allow
content similarity to trump (full) filename equality.

> And when contents are similar to the same degree of less than 100%,
> we do not favor a pair between the same filename over a pair between
> different filenames, as long as they are similar to the same degree.

This is also not true; we tiebreak with filenames for inexact renames
just like we do for exact renames (note that basename_same() is called
both from find_identical_files() and from the nested loop where
inexact rename detection is done).

> So, I do not think "opposite" is helping readers to understand what
> is going on.
>
> > +test_expect_success 'basename similarity vs best similarity' '
> > +     mkdir subdir &&
> > +     test_write_lines line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 \
> > +                      line6 line7 line8 line9 line10 >subdir/file.txt &&
> > +     git add subdir/file.txt &&
> > +     git commit -m "base txt" &&
> > +
> > +     git rm subdir/file.txt &&
> > +     test_write_lines line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 \
> > +                       line6 line7 line8 >file.txt &&
> > +     test_write_lines line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 \
> > +                       line6 line7 line8 line9 >file.md &&
> > +     git add file.txt file.md &&
> > +     git commit -a -m "rename" &&
> > +     git diff-tree -r -M --name-status HEAD^ HEAD >actual &&
> > +     # subdir/file.txt is 89% similar to file.md, 78% similar to file.txt,
> > +     # but since same basenames are checked first...
>
> I am not sure what the second line of this comment wants to imply
> with the ellipses here.  Care to finish the sentence?
>
> Or was the second line planned to be added when we start applying
> the "check only the same filename first and see if we find a
> better-than-reasonable match" heuristics but somehow survived
> "rebase -i" and ended up here?

Oops, indeed; that is precisely what happened.  Will fix.

> > +     cat >expected <<-\EOF &&
> > +     R088    subdir/file.txt file.md
> > +     A       file.txt
> > +     EOF
> > +     test_cmp expected actual
>
> Thanks.