Re: [PATCH v4] userdiff: improve java hunk header regex

[Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org>]

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:

Hi Hannes,

>>> These new tests are very much appreciated. You do not have to go
>>> wild with that many return type tests; IMO, the simple one and the
>>> most complicated one should do it. (And btw, s/cart/card/)
>> 
>> Well, they appeared naturally as a result during development and made
>> it easier to spot errors when you know up to which level of
>> complexity it still worked.  Is there a stronger reason to remove
>> tests which might not be needed, e.g., runtime cost on some CI
>> machines?
>
> I totally understand how the test cases evolved. Having many of them
> is not a big deal. It's just the disproportion of tests of this new
> feature vs. the existing tests that your patch creates, in particular,
> when earlier of the new tests are subsumed by later new tests.

Sure thing, I'll see if I can remove some tests.

>> Another thing I've noticed (with my suggested patch) is that I should
>> not try to match constructor signatures.  I think that's impossible
>> because they are indistinguishable from method calls, e.g., in
>> 
>>   public class MyClass {
>>       MyClass(String RIGHT) {
>>           someMethodCall();
>>           someOtherMethod(17)
>>               .doThat();
>>           // Whatever
>>           // ChangeMe
>>       }
>>   }
>> 
>> there is no regex way to prefer MyClass(String RIGHT) over
>> someOtherMethod().
>
> Good find.

The longer you play with it, the more you find out.

>> So all in all, I'd propose this version in the next patch version:
>> 
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> PATTERNS("java",
>> 	 "!^[ \t]*(catch|do|for|if|instanceof|new|return|switch|throw|while)\n"
>>          "^[ \t]*("
>>          /* Class, enum, and interface declarations */
>>          "(([a-z]+[ \t]+)*(class|enum|interface)[ \t]+[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_$]*[ \t]+.*)"
>>          /* Method definitions; note that constructor signatures are not */
>>          /* matched because they are indistinguishable from method calls. */
>>          "|(([A-Za-z_<>&][][?&<>.,A-Za-z_0-9]*[ \t]+)+[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*[ \t]*\\([^;]*)"
>>          ")$",
>> 	 /* -- */
>> 	 "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
>> 	 "|[-+0-9.e]+[fFlL]?|0[xXbB]?[0-9a-fA-F]+[lL]?"
>> 	 "|[-+*/<>%&^|=!]="
>> 	 "|--|\\+\\+|<<=?|>>>?=?|&&|\\|\\|"),
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> That looks fine.
>
> One suggestion, though. You do not have to have all positive patterns
> ("class, enum, interface" and "method definitions") in a single
> pattern separated by "|". You can place them on different "lines"
> (note the "\n" at the end of the first pattern):
>
> 	/* Class, enum, and interface declarations */
> 	"^[ \t]*(...(class|enum|interface)...)$\n"
> 	/*
> 	 * Method definitions; note that constructor signatures are not
> 	 * matched because they are indistinguishable from method calls.
> 	 */
> 	"^[ \t]*(...[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*[ \t]*\\([^;]*))$",
>
> I don't think there is a technical difference, but I find this form
> easier to understand because fewer open parentheses have to be
> tracked.

Yes, indeed.  Because of that reason I've put the first ( and the last )
on separate lines but your approach is even better.

Patch version v5 will come anytime soon.

Thanks!
Tassilo