Skip to content

Implement an advanced fuzzy diffing feature for interdiff#156

Open
kerneltoast wants to merge 18 commits intotwaugh:masterfrom
kerneltoast:sultan/new-fuzzy-algo
Open

Implement an advanced fuzzy diffing feature for interdiff#156
kerneltoast wants to merge 18 commits intotwaugh:masterfrom
kerneltoast:sultan/new-fuzzy-algo

Conversation

@kerneltoast
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This implements a --fuzzy option to make interdiff perform a fuzzy
comparison between two diffs. This is very helpful, for example, for
comparing a backport patch to its upstream source patch to assist a human
reviewer in verifying the correctness of the backport.

The fuzzy diffing process is complex and works by:

  • Generating a new patch file with hunks split up into smaller hunks to
    separate out multiple deltas (+/- lines) in a single hunk that are spaced
    apart by context lines, increasing the amount of deltas that can be
    applied successfully with fuzz
  • Applying the rewritten p1 patch to p2's original file, and the rewritten
    p2 patch to p1's original file; the original files aren't ever merged
  • Relocating patched hunks in only p1's original file to align with their
    respective locations in the other file, based on the reported line
    offset printed out by patch for each hunk it successfully applied
  • Squashing unline gaps fewer than max_context*2 lines between hunks in the
    patched files, to hide unknown contextual information that is irrelevant
    for comparing the two diffs while also improving hunk alignment between
    the two patched files
  • Diffing the two patched files as usual
  • Rewriting the hunks in the diff output to exclude unlines from the
    unified diff, even splitting up hunks to remove unlines present in the
    middle of a hunk, while also adjusting the @@ line to compensate for the
    change in line offsets
  • Emitting the rewritten diff output while interleaving rejected hunks from
    both p1 and p2 in the output in order by line number, with a comment on
    the @@ line indicating when an emitted hunk is a rejected hunk

This also involves working around some bugs in patch itself encountered
along the way, such as occasionally inaccurate line offsets printed out and
spurious fuzzing in certain cases that involve hunks with an unequal number
of pre-context and post-context lines.

The end result of all of this is a minimal set of real differences in the
context lines of each hunk between the user's provided diffs. Even when
fuzzing results in a faulty patch, the context differences are shown so
there is never a risk of any real deltas getting hidden due to fuzzing.

By default, the fuzz factor used is just the default used in patch. The
fuzz factor can be adjusted by the user via appending =N to --fuzzy to
specify the maximum number of context lines for patch to fuzz.

Testing

This was tested on several complex Linux kernel patches to compare the backported version of a patch to its original upstream version. This PR also comes with a few basic fuzzy diffing tests integrated into the test infrastructure.

It's difficult to conditionally add additional arguments to the patch
execution in apply_patch() because they are placed within a compound
literal array.

Make the arguments more extensible by creating a local array and an index
variable to place the next argument into the array. This way, it's much
easier to change the number of arguments provided at runtime.
Remove the superfluous fseeks and simplify the original file creation
process by moving relevant fseeks to come right after the file cursor was
last modified.
Coloring the newline character results in the terminal cursor becoming
colored when the final line in the interdiff is colored.

Fix this by not coloring the newline character.
@kerneltoast kerneltoast force-pushed the sultan/new-fuzzy-algo branch 2 times, most recently from 18418f4 to 5401c9f Compare November 14, 2025 07:51
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 14, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 86.05578% with 140 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.17%. Comparing base (487f3e8) to head (d90325c).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/interdiff.c 86.05% 140 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #156      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.47%   86.17%   -0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          15       15              
  Lines        8176     8931     +755     
  Branches     1643     1851     +208     
==========================================
+ Hits         7070     7696     +626     
- Misses       1106     1235     +129     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 86.17% <86.05%> (-0.31%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@kerneltoast
Copy link
Contributor Author

@twaugh Please take a look at this when you can, thanks!

When an @@ line isn't immediately after the +++ line in patch2, the next
line is checked from the top of the loop which tries to search for a +++
line again, even though the +++ was already found. This results in the +++
not being found again and thus a spurious error that patch2 is empty.

Fix this by making the patch2 case loop over the next line until either an
@@ is found or the patch is exhausted.
@kerneltoast kerneltoast force-pushed the sultan/new-fuzzy-algo branch from 5401c9f to 170ca21 Compare November 14, 2025 18:58
@kerneltoast
Copy link
Contributor Author

All checks are passing now with a lot more test coverage added.

@kerneltoast kerneltoast force-pushed the sultan/new-fuzzy-algo branch 2 times, most recently from 01efe36 to 60a60b3 Compare November 20, 2025 08:04
@kerneltoast
Copy link
Contributor Author

@twaugh I had updated this PR with several fixes and additional tests last week, and everything is finalized beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point. Would love to land this into patchutils!

kerneltoast and others added 14 commits February 6, 2026 13:59
This implements a --fuzzy option to make interdiff perform a fuzzy
comparison between two diffs. This is very helpful, for example, for
comparing a backport patch to its upstream source patch to assist a human
reviewer in verifying the correctness of the backport.

The fuzzy diffing process is complex and works by:
- Generating a new patch file with hunks split up into smaller hunks to
  separate out multiple deltas (+/- lines) in a single hunk that are spaced
  apart by context lines, increasing the amount of deltas that can be
  applied successfully with fuzz
- Applying the rewritten p1 patch to p2's original file, and the rewritten
  p2 patch to p1's original file; the original files aren't ever merged
- Relocating patched hunks in only p1's original file to align with their
  respective locations in the other file, based on the reported line
  offset printed out by `patch` for each hunk it successfully applied
- Squashing unline gaps fewer than max_context*2 lines between hunks in the
  patched files, to hide unknown contextual information that is irrelevant
  for comparing the two diffs while also improving hunk alignment between
  the two patched files
- Diffing the two patched files as usual
- Rewriting the hunks in the diff output to exclude unlines from the
  unified diff, even splitting up hunks to remove unlines present in the
  middle of a hunk, while also adjusting the @@ line to compensate for the
  change in line offsets
- Emitting the rewritten diff output while interleaving rejected hunks from
  both p1 and p2 in the output in order by line number, with a comment on
  the @@ line indicating when an emitted hunk is a rejected hunk

This also involves working around some bugs in `patch` itself encountered
along the way, such as occasionally inaccurate line offsets printed out and
spurious fuzzing in certain cases that involve hunks with an unequal number
of pre-context and post-context lines.

The end result of all of this is a minimal set of real differences in the
context lines of each hunk between the user's provided diffs. Even when
fuzzing results in a faulty patch, the context differences are shown so
there is never a risk of any real deltas getting hidden due to fuzzing.

By default, the fuzz factor used is just the default used in `patch`. The
fuzz factor can be adjusted by the user via appending =N to `--fuzzy` to
specify the maximum number of context lines for `patch` to fuzz.
Fuzzy interdiffs would show how to go from patch2 to patch1, the opposite
of how it should be. Fix it so that the output shows how to go from patch1
to patch2.
split_patch_hunks() fails to filter bogus hunks that contain real context
lines mixed with unlines. Such hunks are still bogus because they don't
have any delta lines.

Additionally, the numbers in the @@ line become nonsense when more than one
bogus hunk is filtered.

Fix both of these issues affecting the bogus hunk filter logic.
So that patch never tries to prompt and ask for something when running
interdiff on an interactive terminal.
Fuzzy mode output is incoherent because context differences show up as
going from patch1 -> patch2, while delta differences show up in the
opposite direction: patch2 -> patch1.

This makes it rather impossible to tell which patch file a +/- line
originates from, not to mention that the diff itself is totally nonsense in
terms of the actual code changed by the patches.

Bring interdiff part of the way there to fixing this issue, by eliminating
delta differences from the compared files. Note that this makes fuzzy mode
only do context diffing, which is fixed in the subsequent commits.
…ed one

When using --fuzzy mode, interdiff splits patch hunks and applies them
with fuzz to maximize successful application. The parse_fuzzed_hunks()
function parses patch's output to create relocation records that track
where hunks were applied and how much they need to be relocated back to
their original intended positions.

The bug was in how the relocation's `new` field was calculated. The code
was storing:

    new = lnum - hunk_offs[hnum - 1]

where `lnum` is the line number where patch applied the hunk, and
`hunk_offs` is the offset introduced by splitting the original hunk into
smaller pieces. This calculation gives the "original hunk's intended
line number" before any splitting occurred.

However, fuzzy_relocate_hunks() later searches for hunks in the patched
file by looking for hunks where `hcurr->nstart == rcurr->new`. The hunks
in the patched file are located at their *actual* applied positions
(i.e., `lnum`), not at the adjusted position (`lnum - hunk_offs`). This
mismatch caused the relocation logic to fail to find the target hunk,
triggering the fatal "failed to relocate hunk" error.

The fix changes the relocation record to store:

    new = lnum                    (actual position in patched file)
    off = off + split_off         (total offset: patch offset + split offset)

This ensures that:

1. Hunks can be found at their actual positions in the patched file
   (matching `hcurr->nstart == rcurr->new` succeeds)

2. When relocating, subtracting `off` correctly moves the hunk back to
   its original intended position, accounting for both the patch offset
   (where patch chose to apply the hunk) and the split offset (the
   difference introduced by hunk splitting)

3. Duplicate detection still works correctly by comparing original
   intended positions: `lnum - off - split_off == prev->new - prev->off`
   simplifies to comparing the same values as before since prev->off now
   also includes the split offset

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This is a slippery slope and tricky to keep track of to ensure that the
file string buffer is sufficiently large. Just use dynamic allocations.
Extract the common diff invocation pattern into a reusable run_diff()
helper function. This function:

- Takes options string as a parameter (caller builds it)
- Builds the diff command with the options and diff_opts
- Executes diff via xpipe()
- Consumes the --- and +++ header lines
- Returns a FILE* positioned at the first @@ line, or NULL if empty
- Optionally returns the child pid for the caller to waitpid()

Refactor output_delta() to use run_diff() instead of inline diff code.
This simplifies the function and prepares for additional diff call sites.

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Refactor fuzzy mode to produce clearly separated output sections that
distinguish between actual code changes (delta differences) and
surrounding context changes (context differences). This makes it much
easier for reviewers to understand backport patches by showing:

1. What behavioral changes differ between the patches
2. What contextual adaptations were made for the target codebase
3. Which hunks couldn't be applied and need manual review

DELTA DIFFING:

The goal is to show code changes present in one patch but not the other,
even when patch2 has hunks that fail to apply due to context mismatch.

1. Construct patch1_orig and patch1_new from patch1
2. Split patch2 and apply to patch1_orig with normal fuzz
3. Generate delta_diff = diff(patch1_new, patch1_orig + patch2)
4. Filter delta hunks that are just the inverse of rejected patch2
   hunks (see REJECTION FILTERING below)
5. Filter bogus hunks containing unlines via split_patch_hunks()

CONTEXT DIFFING:

The goal is to show only context differences with delta changes removed.

1. Create a fresh copy of patch1_orig (delta diffing modified tmpp1)
2. Apply delta_diff in reverse to patch2_orig to remove delta changes
3. Parse fuzz offsets and relocate hunks in patch2_orig
4. Generate ctx_diff = diff(patch1_orig, patch2_orig)
5. Filter bogus hunks containing unlines via split_patch_hunks()

REJECTION FILTERING:

When patch2 has a hunk that was rejected on patch1_orig, and patch1 makes
the same change, the delta diff will show a bogus difference (patch1_new
has the change but tmpp1 doesn't). Rather than reverse-applying rejected
hunks with GNU patch (which is unreliable when multiple similar code
patterns exist), delta_diff is post-processed to filter these out:

1. Parse all delta hunks and rejected hunks, extracting +/- lines and
   context lines with their distances from the nearest change line.

2. For each rejected hunk, find the best matching delta hunk: the
   rejected hunk's +lines must appear as a contiguous segment in the
   delta's -lines (and vice versa). Among matches, pick the delta hunk
   with the highest context score. The score is the sum of matching
   context line lengths divided by distance from the nearest change,
   so lines adjacent to changes are weighted most heavily (similar to
   how GNU patch prioritizes inner context for fuzzy matching).

3. Each rejected hunk is assigned to at most one delta hunk. A single
   delta hunk may have multiple rejected hunks assigned (when diff
   merged adjacent rejected changes into one hunk).

4. A delta hunk is filtered only if ALL its change lines are fully
   covered by assigned rejected hunks, verified by greedy sequential
   matching.

OUTPUT STRUCTURE:

Output is organized into distinct sections with 80-column ASCII banners.
Delta differences use = borders with * sides, rejected hunks use #
borders with ! sides, and context differences use = borders with * sides.

Assisted-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
In fuzzy mode, files modified by only one patch were output raw without
colorization or section headers. Redirect their output into per-section
tmpfile accumulators and display them under new ONLY IN PATCH1 / ONLY IN
PATCH2 banners alongside the existing delta/context/rejected sections.

Suppress the "reverted:" and "unchanged:" labels in fuzzy mode since the
section headers already convey the meaning.

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
When comparing context differences between two patches, diff hunks can
contain changes at the top or bottom edge that are exclusively additions
or exclusively deletions. These are not real differences -- they are
artifacts of one patch having captured more or fewer context lines than
the other around the same code change.

For example, if patch2 includes 5 lines of context above a change but
patch1 only includes 3, the context diff will show those 2 extra lines
as additions at the top of a hunk. This is misleading because the
patches make the same change; they just differ in how much surrounding
code was captured.

Add filter_edge_hunks() to detect and handle these spurious edge lines.
For each hunk, the first and last context lines partition the body into
three regions: top edge, middle, and bottom edge. Each edge is then
classified:

- Two-sided (has both additions and deletions): a real change, kept
  as-is
- One-sided (exclusively additions or exclusively deletions): spurious,
  trimmed from the hunk and the @@ header line counts adjusted

If no changes remain after trimming (the entire hunk was spurious
edges), the hunk is dropped. If all hunks are dropped, the CONTEXT
DIFFERENCES section is suppressed entirely.

Assisted-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Update expected output for fuzzy1-9 tests to reflect the new
section-based output format and improved hunk matching.

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@kerneltoast kerneltoast force-pushed the sultan/new-fuzzy-algo branch from 60a60b3 to d90325c Compare February 11, 2026 03:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant