cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/214031

Have you ever used git bisect? If so, how did you use it? Did it help you find a problem which would otherwise be difficult to find? Story time, I guess?

9 points
*

Multiple times.

Typically on high frequented repositories. If there are a hundred commits (or more) each day, suddenly merged from multiple branches and shit starts to go weird, it is sometimes not clear when exactly it started to go south. So I write a test to reproduce the problem and then let git bisect checkout, run test, etc. until it can tell me which revision it first occurred in.

One time I also had to find out when a specific functionality in a microcontroller broke. I have forgotten, why we knew it worked before without having it covered in a test, though. The build-download-testrun-repeat-cycle took almost a day until it could pinpoint the revision. That was fun. But it nailed it to a single line and was right with it.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

This exactly. The more developers working on different parts of an application, the more chance of an apparently-easy merge having unforeseen side effects. git bisect is the easiest way to narrow down the problem so real debugging can begin.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This is how I used it too. Write a test that fails with the “bad” version. Use a script to cherry-pick and run the test. It’s fun to watch it find the first bad commit even though what git bisect does is quite simple.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Several times, sometimes to find out when an incompatibility was introduced in an upstream dependency to find the maximum compatible version, but usually to find the commit that introduced a strange bug.

The process is always the same… Write a unit test, start bisect, check test select next bisect step, repeat. If your last-known-good and first-known-bad are correct, it always worked for me.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

I’ve used it only once to find a bug in a section of code at a company I was working for that both me and the other engineer I was working with did not know the history of. We were able to triangulate effectively the root of the pre-existing bug, and kind of how it was introduced, because of the surrounding history. Very useful tool for this purpose, albeit one that I use very infrequently.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

I use it from time to time. Often I test manually instead of automatic, and it often works very well.

But if you want a story about an unconventional use of git bisect, I think there’s one about the time I had a directory with lots of files, and one of those files was causing some problem, but I didn’t know which one it was. Those files were not under version control, but I created a repo with them, where each file was added in a separate commit. Then I could use git bisect to find which file was causing the problems.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

I’ve used it to fix regressions, most recently in a register allocator for a compiler. There’s pretty much no chance I would’ve found that particular bug otherwise; it was caused by an innocuous change (one of those “this shouldn’t matter” things) clashing badly with an incorrect assumption baked into a completely different part of the allocator.

I had seen the same effect from an unrelated bug on a different program. When I added a new test and saw the same effect, I had a “didn’t I fix this already?” moment. When I saw that the previous fix was still there, I checked if an older version of the allocator exhibited the same bug on the new test, and it did not. Bisecting found the offending change relatively quickly and further conventional testing exposed the incorrect assumption.

permalink
report
reply

Programming

!programming@beehaw.org

Create post

All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 69

    Monthly active users

  • 320

    Posts

  • 3.3K

    Comments