Commit c7c2bc0
word-diff: ignore '\ No newline at eof' marker
The word-diff logic accumulates + and - lines until another line type
appears (normally [ @\]), at which point it generates the word diff.
This is usually correct, but it breaks when the preimage does not have
a newline at EOF:
$ printf "%s" "a a a" >a
$ printf "%s\n" "a ab a" >b
$ git diff --no-index --word-diff a b
diff --git 1/a 2/b
index 9f68e94..6a7c02f 100644
--- 1/a
+++ 2/b
@@ -1 +1 @@
[-a a a-]
No newline at end of file
{+a ab a+}
Because of the order of the lines in a unified diff
@@ -1 +1 @@
-a a a
\ No newline at end of file
+a ab a
the '\' line flushed the buffers, and the - and + lines were never
matched with each other.
A proper fix would defer such markers until the end of the hunk.
However, word-diff is inherently whitespace-ignoring, so as a cheap
fix simply ignore the marker (and hide it from the output).
We use a prefix match for '\ ' to parallel the logic in
apply.c:parse_fragment(). We currently do not localize this string
(just accept other variants of it in git-apply), but this should be
future-proof.
Noticed-by: Ivan Shirokoff <shirokoff@yandex-team.ru>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>1 parent 37475f9 commit c7c2bc0
2 files changed
Lines changed: 23 additions & 0 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
1111 | 1111 | | |
1112 | 1112 | | |
1113 | 1113 | | |
| 1114 | + | |
| 1115 | + | |
| 1116 | + | |
| 1117 | + | |
| 1118 | + | |
| 1119 | + | |
| 1120 | + | |
| 1121 | + | |
| 1122 | + | |
1114 | 1123 | | |
1115 | 1124 | | |
1116 | 1125 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
333 | 333 | | |
334 | 334 | | |
335 | 335 | | |
| 336 | + | |
| 337 | + | |
| 338 | + | |
| 339 | + | |
| 340 | + | |
| 341 | + | |
| 342 | + | |
| 343 | + | |
| 344 | + | |
| 345 | + | |
| 346 | + | |
| 347 | + | |
| 348 | + | |
| 349 | + | |
336 | 350 | | |
0 commit comments