patch-ids: handle duplicate hashmap entries

This fixes a bug introduced in dfb7a1b4d0 (patch-ids: stop using a
hand-rolled hashmap implementation, 2016-07-29) in which

  git rev-list --cherry-pick A...B

will fail to suppress commits reachable from A even if a commit with
matching patch-id appears in B.

Around the time of that commit, the algorithm for "--cherry-pick" looked
something like this:

  0. Traverse all of the commits, marking them as being on the left or
     right side of the symmetric difference.

  1. Iterate over the left-hand commits, inserting a patch-id struct for
     each into a hashmap, and pointing commit->util to the patch-id
     struct.

  2. Iterate over the right-hand commits, checking which are present in
     the hashmap. If so, we exclude the commit from the output _and_ we
     mark the patch-id as "seen".

  3. Iterate again over the left-hand commits, checking whether
     commit->util->seen is set; if so, exclude them from the output.

At the end, we'll have eliminated commits from both sides that have a
matching patch-id on the other side. But there's a subtle assumption
here: for any given patch-id, we must have exactly one struct
representing it. If two commits from A both have the same patch-id and
we allow duplicates in the hashmap, then we run into a problem:

  a. In step 1, we insert two patch-id structs into the hashmap.

  b. In step 2, our lookups will find only one of these structs, so only
     one "seen" flag is marked.

  c. In step 3, one of the commits in A will have its commit->util->seen
     set, but the other will not. We'll erroneously output the latter.

Prior to dfb7a1b4d0, our hashmap did not allow duplicates. Afterwards,
it used hashmap_add(), which explicitly does allow duplicates.

At that point, the solution would have been easy: when we are about to
add a duplicate, skip doing so and return the existing entry which
matches. But it gets more complicated.

In 683f17ec44 (patch-ids: replace the seen indicator with a commit
pointer, 2016-07-29), our step 3 goes away entirely. Instead, in step 2,
when the right-hand side finds a matching patch_id from the left-hand
side, we can directly mark the left-hand patch_id->commit to be omitted.
Solving that would be easy, too; there's a one-to-many relationship of
patch-ids to commits, so we just need to keep a list.

But there's more. Commit b3dfeebb92 (rebase: avoid computing unnecessary
patch IDs, 2016-07-29) built on that by lazily computing the full
patch-ids. So we don't even know when adding to the hashmap whether two
commits truly have the same id. We'd have to tentatively assign them a
list, and then possibly split them apart (possibly into N new structs)
at the moment we compute the real patch-ids. This could work, but it's
complicated and error-prone.

Instead, let's accept that we may store duplicates, and teach the lookup
side to be more clever. Rather than asking for a single matching
patch-id, it will need to iterate over all matching patch-ids. This does
mean examining every entry in a single hash bucket, but the worst-case
for a hash lookup was already doing that.

We'll keep the hashmap details out of the caller by providing a simple
iteration interface. We can retain the simple has_commit_patch_id()
interface for the other callers, but we'll simplify its return value
into an integer, rather than returning the patch_id struct. That way
they won't be tempted to look at the "commit" field of the return value
without iterating.

Reported-by: Arnaud Morin <arnaud.morin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions