3c7b0f97e0
45133c589a970390bc10e4db4f7d9921dbaa0832 doc: clarify `git range-diff` add/delete output (Lőrinc)
Pull request description:
### Problem
Range diffs in git are useful after PR rebases, but it has an easy-to-misread failure mode: if it cannot match a commit between the old and new ranges, it will show the old commit as removed (<) and the new commit as added (>), without showing any patch contents for that commit.
It can look like there were no code changes when in reality the commit was just treated as unrelated and needs full re-review.
### Example
```bash
git fetch upstream ff338fdb53a66ab40a36e1277e7371941fc89840 dd76338a57b9b1169ac27f7b783d6d0d4c6e38ab
git range-diff ff338fdb53a6...dd76338a57b9
```
This produced output like:
```patch
1: 0ca4295f2e = 93: 139aa4b27e bench: add on-disk `HaveInputs` benchmark
2: 4b32181dbb < -: ---------- test: add `HaveInputs` call-path unit tests
-: ---------- > 94: 277c57f0c5 test: add `HaveInputs` call-path unit tests
3: 8c57687f86 ! 95: c0c94ec986 dbwrapper: have `Read` and `Exists` reuse `ReadRaw`
@@ Metadata
## Commit message ##
dbwrapper: have `Read` and `Exists` reuse `ReadRaw`
- `ExistsImpl` was removed since it duplicates `CDBWrapper::ReadImpl` (except that it copies the resulting string on success, but that will be needed for caching anyway).
+ `ExistsImpl` was removed since it duplicates `CDBWrapper::ReadImpl`.
```
Even though the subject matches, there is no diff shown because the commits did not match - the reviewer could think that only the commit message was changed.
This should be treated as **unmatched** rather than **unchanged**.
If you expected a match, you can try increasing the search effort:
```bash
git range-diff --creation-factor=95 ff338fdb53a6...dd76338a57b9
```
which would show for example:
```patch
1: 0ca4295f2e = 93: 139aa4b27e bench: add on-disk `HaveInputs` benchmark
2: 4b32181dbb ! 94: 277c57f0c5 test: add `HaveInputs` call-path unit tests
@@ Commit message
The tests document that `HaveInputs()` consults the cache first and that a cache miss pulls from the backing view via `GetCoin()`.
+ Co-authored-by: Novo <eunovo9@gmail.com>
+
## src/test/coins_tests.cpp ##
@@ src/test/coins_tests.cpp: BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(ccoins_flush_behavior, FlushTest)
}
}
-+BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(ccoins_haveinputs_cache_miss_uses_base_getcoin)
++BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(ccoins_cache_behavior)
```
### Fix
This PR updates `doc/productivity.md` to raise awareness and document this pitfall and mentions `--creation-factor` as a knob to try when the output seems unexpectedly empty.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
review ACK 45133c589a970390bc10e4db4f7d9921dbaa0832 🏦
Sjors:
ACK 45133c589a970390bc10e4db4f7d9921dbaa0832
rkrux:
crACK 45133c5
sedited:
ACK 45133c589a970390bc10e4db4f7d9921dbaa0832
Tree-SHA512: 52dcf6db51425a3ac9789627f80233fb1e3437f7a351acf4a761504d9917837aa1ff8c964605a842ee099fae9842946784f7603f9bffa7051429b2f04b7900be
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree
For an immediately usable, binary version of the Bitcoin Core software, see https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/.
What is Bitcoin Core?
Bitcoin Core connects to the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network to download and fully validate blocks and transactions. It also includes a wallet and graphical user interface, which can be optionally built.
Further information about Bitcoin Core is available in the doc folder.
License
Bitcoin Core is released under the terms of the MIT license. See COPYING for more information or see https://opensource.org/license/MIT.
Development Process
The master branch is regularly built (see doc/build-*.md for instructions) and tested, but it is not guaranteed to be
completely stable. Tags are created
regularly from release branches to indicate new official, stable release versions of Bitcoin Core.
The https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository is used exclusively for the development of the GUI. Its master branch is identical in all monotree repositories. Release branches and tags do not exist, so please do not fork that repository unless it is for development reasons.
The contribution workflow is described in CONTRIBUTING.md and useful hints for developers can be found in doc/developer-notes.md.
Testing
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more pull requests than we can review and test on short notice. Please be patient and help out by testing other people's pull requests, and remember this is a security-critical project where any mistake might cost people lots of money.
Automated Testing
Developers are strongly encouraged to write unit tests for new code, and to
submit new unit tests for old code. Unit tests can be compiled and run
(assuming they weren't disabled during the generation of the build system) with: ctest. Further details on running
and extending unit tests can be found in /src/test/README.md.
There are also regression and integration tests, written
in Python.
These tests can be run (if the test dependencies are installed) with: build/test/functional/test_runner.py
(assuming build is your build directory).
The CI (Continuous Integration) systems make sure that every pull request is tested on Windows, Linux, and macOS. The CI must pass on all commits before merge to avoid unrelated CI failures on new pull requests.
Manual Quality Assurance (QA) Testing
Changes should be tested by somebody other than the developer who wrote the code. This is especially important for large or high-risk changes. It is useful to add a test plan to the pull request description if testing the changes is not straightforward.
Translations
Changes to translations as well as new translations can be submitted to Bitcoin Core's Transifex page.
Translations are periodically pulled from Transifex and merged into the git repository. See the translation process for details on how this works.
Important: We do not accept translation changes as GitHub pull requests because the next pull from Transifex would automatically overwrite them again.