Fix incorrect logic for extending patch size beyond original file length

[mrT23]

PR Type

Bug fix

---

Description

• Fixed a bug in the extend_patch function where the logic for extending the patch size was incorrect for modified files.
• Removed the check that limited extended_size2 based on the original file length, as it was not applicable for files that have been modified and potentially increased in size.
• Added a comment explaining why the removed check was incorrect, noting that after the PR, the file may have more lines than the original.
• The fix ensures that patches can be correctly extended for files that have been modified and potentially increased in size during the PR.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Bug fix	git_patch_processing.py Fix patch extension logic for modified files                          pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py Fixed incorrect logic for extending patch size beyond original file length Removed check that limited extended_size2 based on original file length Added comment explaining why the removed check was incorrect +3/-2

---

💡 PR-Agent usage:
Comment /help on the PR to get a list of all available PR-Agent tools and their descriptions

[codiumai-pr-agent-pro]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2 🔵🔵⚪⚪⚪

🏅 Score: 95

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

🔀 No multiple PR themes

⚡ Key issues to review Code Clarity The comment on line 58 could be more concise and clearer. Consider rephrasing it to explain why the check is no longer needed.

[codiumai-pr-agent-pro]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Category	Suggestion	Score
Possible issue	Add a check to prevent negative values in calculations Consider adding a check to ensure that extended_size1 doesn't become negative. This could happen if extended_start1 is greater than len_original_lines. pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py [53-55] if extended_start1 - 1 + extended_size1 > len(original_lines): # we cannot extend beyond the original file - extended_size1 = len_original_lines - extended_start1 + 1 + extended_size1 = max(0, len_original_lines - extended_start1 + 1) Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 Why: This suggestion identifies a potential bug where extended_size1 could become negative. Implementing this check would prevent possible runtime errors or unexpected behavior.	9
Maintainability	Add a comment explaining why extended_size2 is not limited Consider adding a comment explaining why extended_size2 is not limited like extended_size1. This will help future readers understand the difference in treatment between the two variables. pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py [56-57] extended_start2 = max(1, start2 - patch_extra_lines_before) extended_size2 = size2 + (start2 - extended_start2) + patch_extra_lines_after +# Note: extended_size2 is not limited because the file size may have changed after the patch Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 Why: This suggestion addresses an important aspect of code clarity, explaining a non-obvious difference in variable treatment that could confuse future developers.	8
	Remove or replace commented-out code with a more concise explanation Consider removing the commented-out code (lines 58-59) as it's no longer needed and may confuse future readers. If the comment is important, consider moving it to a more appropriate location or rephrasing it as a regular comment. pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py [58-59] -# if extended_start2 - 1 + extended_size2 > len_original_lines: # incorrect - after the PR, the file may have more lines -# extended_size2 = len_original_lines - extended_start2 + 1 +# After the PR, the file may have more lines, so we don't need to limit extended_size2 Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: Removing commented-out code improves readability and maintainability. The suggestion correctly identifies unnecessary code and proposes a clearer alternative.	7

[codiumai-pr-agent-pro]

CI Failure Feedback 🧐

(Checks updated until commit a06670b)

Action: build-and-test

Failed stage: Test dev docker [❌]

Failed test name: test_single_hunk

Failure summary: The action failed due to a test failure in the test_single_hunk function within the TestExtendPatch class. Specifically: The test is located in the file tests/unittest/test_extend_patch.py. The assertion assert actual_output == expected_output failed. The actual output differed from the expected output in the patch header: - Expected: @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ init( - Actual: @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ init( This suggests that the extend_patch function is not correctly handling the patch extension, possibly adding an extra line that wasn't expected.

Relevant error logs: 1: ##[group]Operating System 2: Ubuntu ... 1013: tests/unittest/test_find_line_number_of_relevant_line_in_file.py ...... [ 58%] 1014: tests/unittest/test_fix_output.py .... [ 64%] 1015: tests/unittest/test_github_action_output.py .... [ 69%] 1016: tests/unittest/test_handle_patch_deletions.py .... [ 74%] 1017: tests/unittest/test_language_handler.py ...... [ 82%] 1018: tests/unittest/test_load_yaml.py ... [ 85%] 1019: tests/unittest/test_parse_code_suggestion.py .... [ 91%] 1020: tests/unittest/test_try_fix_yaml.py ....... [100%] 1021: =================================== FAILURES =================================== ... 1024: def test_single_hunk(self): 1025: original_file_str = 'line1\nline2\nline3\nline4\nline5' 1026: patch_str = '@@ -2,3 +2,3 @@ init()\n-line2\n+new_line2\n line3\n line4' 1027: for num_lines in [1, 2, 3]: # check that even if we are over the number of lines in the file, the function still works 1028: expected_output = '@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ init()\n line1\n-line2\n+new_line2\n line3\n line4\n line5' 1029: actual_output = extend_patch(original_file_str, patch_str, 1030: patch_extra_lines_before=num_lines, patch_extra_lines_after=num_lines) 1031: > assert actual_output == expected_output 1032: E AssertionError: assert '@@ -1,5 +1,6...line4\n line5' == '@@ -1,5 +1,5...line4\n line5' 1033: E Skipping 47 identical trailing characters in diff, use -v to show 1034: E - @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ init( 1035: E ? ^ 1036: E + @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ init( 1037: E ? ^ 1038: tests/unittest/test_extend_patch.py:52: AssertionError ... 1062: /usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/azure/devops/__init__.py:6: DeprecationWarning: Deprecated call to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace('azure.devops')`. 1063: Implementing implicit namespace packages (as specified in PEP 420) is preferred to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace`. See https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/references/keywords.html#keyword-namespace-packages 1064: pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__) 1065: ../usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py:2317 1066: /usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py:2317: DeprecationWarning: Deprecated call to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace('azure')`. 1067: Implementing implicit namespace packages (as specified in PEP 420) is preferred to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace`. See https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/references/keywords.html#keyword-namespace-packages 1068: declare_namespace(parent) 1069: ../usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pydantic/_internal/_config.py:291 1070: /usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pydantic/_internal/_config.py:291: PydanticDeprecatedSince20: Support for class-based `config` is deprecated, use ConfigDict instead. Deprecated in Pydantic V2.0 to be removed in V3.0. See Pydantic V2 Migration Guide at https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.8/migration/ ... 1142: pr_agent/tools/pr_questions.py 82 82 0% 1143: pr_agent/tools/pr_reviewer.py 247 247 0% 1144: pr_agent/tools/pr_similar_issue.py 363 363 0% 1145: pr_agent/tools/pr_update_changelog.py 100 100 0% 1146: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1147: TOTAL 7819 6439 18% 1148: Coverage XML written to file coverage.xml 1149: =========================== short test summary info ============================ 1150: FAILED tests/unittest/test_extend_patch.py::TestExtendPatch::test_single_hunk 1151: ================== 1 failed, 77 passed, 13 warnings in 9.61s =================== 1152: ##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.

---

✨ CI feedback usage guide:

---

The CI feedback tool (/checks) automatically triggers when a PR has a failed check.
The tool analyzes the failed checks and provides several feedbacks:

• Failed stage
• Failed test name
• Failure summary
• Relevant error logs

In addition to being automatically triggered, the tool can also be invoked manually by commenting on a PR:

/checks "https://github.com/{repo_name}/actions/runs/{run_number}/job/{job_number}"

where {repo_name} is the name of the repository, {run_number} is the run number of the failed check, and {job_number} is the job number of the failed check.

Configuration options

• enable_auto_checks_feedback - if set to true, the tool will automatically provide feedback when a check is failed. Default is true.
• excluded_checks_list - a list of checks to exclude from the feedback, for example: ["check1", "check2"]. Default is an empty list.
• enable_help_text - if set to true, the tool will provide a help message with the feedback. Default is true.
• persistent_comment - if set to true, the tool will overwrite a previous checks comment with the new feedback. Default is true.
• final_update_message - if persistent_comment is true and updating a previous checks message, the tool will also create a new message: "Persistent checks updated to latest commit". Default is true.

See more information about the checks tool in the docs.