test_cmp expected actual
'
-# Note that the "6" in the expected hunk header below is funny, since we only
-# show 5 lines (the missing one was blank and thus ignored). This is how
-# --ignore-blank-lines behaves even without --function-context, and this test
-# is just checking the interaction of the two features. Don't take it as an
-# endorsement of that output.
test_expect_success 'combine --ignore-blank-lines with --function-context' '
test_write_lines 1 "" 2 3 4 5 >a &&
test_write_lines 1 2 3 4 >b &&
cat <<-\EOF >expect &&
@@ -1,6 +1,4 @@
1
+ -
2
3
4
struct func_line func_line = { 0 };
for (xch = xscr; xch; xch = xche->next) {
+ xdchange_t *xchp = xch;
xche = xdl_get_hunk(&xch, xecfg);
if (!xch)
break;
+pre_context_calculation:
s1 = XDL_MAX(xch->i1 - xecfg->ctxlen, 0);
s2 = XDL_MAX(xch->i2 - xecfg->ctxlen, 0);
if (fs1 < s1) {
s2 = XDL_MAX(s2 - (s1 - fs1), 0);
s1 = fs1;
+
+ /*
+ * Did we extend context upwards into an
+ * ignored change?
+ */
+ while (xchp != xch &&
+ xchp->i1 + xchp->chg1 <= s1 &&
+ xchp->i2 + xchp->chg2 <= s2)
+ xchp = xchp->next;
+
+ /* If so, show it after all. */
+ if (xchp != xch) {
+ xch = xchp;
+ goto pre_context_calculation;
+ }
}
}