Skip to content

cli: log: resolve query intersected with prioritize expression independently - #9979

Open
yuja wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
push-zqvrxvnvqmvx
Open

cli: log: resolve query intersected with prioritize expression independently#9979
yuja wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
push-zqvrxvnvqmvx

Conversation

@yuja

@yuja yuja commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes #9975

Checklist

If applicable:

  • I have updated CHANGELOG.md
  • I have updated the documentation (README.md, docs/, demos/)
  • I have updated the config schema (cli/src/config-schema.json)
  • I have added/updated tests to cover my changes
  • I fully understand the code that I am submitting (what it does,
    how it works, how it's organized), including any code drafted by an LLM.
  • For any prose generated by an LLM, I have proof-read and copy-edited with
    an eye towards deleting anything that is irrelevant, clarifying anything
    that is confusing, and adding details that are relevant. This includes,
    for example, commit descriptions, PR descriptions, and code comments.

yuja added 3 commits August 13, 2026 20:30
Since at_operation() creates a resolution scope, the WithinReference node
shouldn't be omitted even if no referenced commits exist in it. It prevents
outer referenced commits from being propagated to the inner node:

    at_operation(op, all()) & outer_ref
                     -----
                     shouldn't include outer_ref
…ndently

Alternatively, we could insert a WithinVisibility node by
resolve_user_expression(). It works, but it can prevent optimization.

Fixes #9975
@yuja
yuja requested a review from a team as a code owner August 13, 2026 11:48
Comment thread lib/tests/test_revset.rs
);

// Visibility and referenced commits resolution between sub expressions:
// each at_operation() node should create its own scope.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the "Since at_operation(op, x) brings all commits that were visible at the operation to the search space" text at https://docs.jj-vcs.dev/latest/revsets/#functions now inaccurate? There was some confusion around this wording in the Discord.

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.

Bug: Panic when revsets.log-graph-prioritize is not visible in the evaluated --revision revset

2 participants