BigW Consortium Gitlab

Commit b44eaf8e by Timothy Andrew

Sort the network graph both by commit date and topographically.

- Previously, we sorted commits by date, which seemed to work okay. - The one edge case where this failed was when multiple commits have the same commit date (for example: when a range of commits are cherry picked with a single command, they all have the same commit date [and different author dates]). - Commits with the same commit date would be sorted arbitrarily, and usually break the network graph. - This commit solves the problem by both sorting by date, and by sorting topographically (parents aren't displayed until all their children are displayed) - Include review comments from @adamniedzielski A more detailed explanation is present here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/30973#note_28706230
parent f930c66e
---
title: Sort the network graph both by commit date and topographically
merge_request: 11057
author:
......@@ -499,8 +499,9 @@ module Gitlab
# :contains is the commit contained by the refs from which to begin (SHA1 or name)
# :max_count is the maximum number of commits to fetch
# :skip is the number of commits to skip
# :order is the commits order and allowed value is :none (default), :date, or :topo
# commit ordering types are documented here:
# :order is the commits order and allowed value is :none (default), :date,
# :topo, or any combination of them (in an array). Commit ordering types
# are documented here:
# http://www.rubydoc.info/github/libgit2/rugged/Rugged#SORT_NONE-constant)
#
def find_commits(options = {})
......@@ -1290,16 +1291,18 @@ module Gitlab
raise CommandError.new(e)
end
# Returns the `Rugged` sorting type constant for a given
# sort type key. Valid keys are `:none`, `:topo`, and `:date`
def rugged_sort_type(key)
# Returns the `Rugged` sorting type constant for one or more given
# sort types. Valid keys are `:none`, `:topo`, and `:date`, or an array
# containing more than one of them. `:date` uses a combination of date and
# topological sorting to closer mimic git's native ordering.
def rugged_sort_type(sort_type)
@rugged_sort_types ||= {
none: Rugged::SORT_NONE,
topo: Rugged::SORT_TOPO,
date: Rugged::SORT_DATE
date: Rugged::SORT_DATE | Rugged::SORT_TOPO
}
@rugged_sort_types.fetch(key, Rugged::SORT_NONE)
@rugged_sort_types.fetch(sort_type, Rugged::SORT_NONE)
end
end
end
......
......@@ -1062,7 +1062,7 @@ describe Gitlab::Git::Repository, seed_helper: true do
end
it "allows ordering by date" do
expect_any_instance_of(Rugged::Walker).to receive(:sorting).with(Rugged::SORT_DATE)
expect_any_instance_of(Rugged::Walker).to receive(:sorting).with(Rugged::SORT_DATE | Rugged::SORT_TOPO)
repository.find_commits(order: :date)
end
......
......@@ -10,17 +10,17 @@ describe Network::Graph, models: true do
expect(graph.notes).to eq( { note_on_commit.commit_id => 1 } )
end
describe "#commits" do
describe '#commits' do
let(:graph) { described_class.new(project, 'refs/heads/master', project.repository.commit, nil) }
it "returns a list of commits" do
it 'returns a list of commits' do
commits = graph.commits
expect(commits).not_to be_empty
expect(commits).to all( be_kind_of(Network::Commit) )
end
it "sorts the commits by commit date (descending)" do
it 'it the commits by commit date (descending)' do
# Remove duplicate timestamps because they make it harder to
# assert that the commits are sorted as expected.
commits = graph.commits.uniq(&:date)
......@@ -29,5 +29,20 @@ describe Network::Graph, models: true do
expect(commits).not_to be_empty
expect(commits.map(&:id)).to eq(sorted_commits.map(&:id))
end
it 'sorts children before parents for commits with the same timestamp' do
commits_by_time = graph.commits.group_by(&:date)
commits_by_time.each do |time, commits|
commit_ids = commits.map(&:id)
commits.each_with_index do |commit, index|
parent_indexes = commit.parent_ids.map { |parent_id| commit_ids.find_index(parent_id) }.compact
# All parents of the current commit should appear after it
expect(parent_indexes).to all( be > index )
end
end
end
end
end
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment