git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

[PATCH v2 32/33] merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renames

From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date
Nov 20, 2017, 22:02 UTC
Message-ID
<20171120220209.15111-33-newren@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20171120220209.15111-1-newren@gmail.com>

If a file on one side of history was renamed, and merely modified on the other side, then applying a directory rename to the modified side gives us a rename/rename(1to2) conflict. We should only apply directory renames to pairs representing either adds or renames.

Making this change means that a directory rename testcase that was previously reported as a rename/delete conflict will now be reported as a modify/delete conflict.

Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
---
 merge-recursive.c                   |  4 +--
 t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 55 +++++++++++++++++--------------------
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
index 6974717719..33d2b5e55e 100644
--- a/merge-recursive.c
+++ b/merge-recursive.c
@@ -1952,7 +1952,7 @@ static void compute_collisions(struct hashmap *collisions,
 		char *new_path;
 		struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i];
 
-		if (pair->status == 'D')
+		if (pair->status == 'D' || pair->status == 'M')
 			continue;
 		dir_rename_ent = check_dir_renamed(pair->two->path,
 						   dir_renames);
@@ -2180,7 +2180,7 @@ static struct string_list *get_renames(struct merge_options *o,
 		struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i];
 		char *new_path; /* non-NULL only with directory renames */
 
-		if (pair->status == 'D') {
+		if (pair->status == 'D' || pair->status == 'M') {
 			diff_free_filepair(pair);
 			continue;
 		}
diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
index 224d266695..119d7f5d70 100755
--- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -2000,18 +2000,23 @@ test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, w
 	)
 '
 
-# Testcase 8c, rename+modify/delete
-#   (Related to testcases 5b and 8d)
+# Testcase 8c, modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?
+#   (Related to testcases 5b, 8d, and 9h)
 #   Commit O: z/{b,c,d}
 #   Commit A: y/{b,c}
 #   Commit B: z/{b,c,d_modified,e}
-#   Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename+modify/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
+#   Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(modify/delete: on z/d)
 #
-#   Note: This testcase doesn't present any concerns for me...until you
-#         compare it with testcases 5b and 8d.  See notes in 8d for more
-#         details.
-
-test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' '
+#   Note: It could easily be argued that the correct resolution here is
+#         y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: z/d -> y/d vs deleted)
+#         and that the modifed version of d should be present in y/ after
+#         the merge, just marked as conflicted.  Indeed, I previously did
+#         argue that.  But applying directory renames to the side of
+#         history where a file is merely modified results in spurious
+#         rename/rename(1to2) conflicts -- see testcase 9h.  See also
+#         notes in 8d.
+
+test_expect_success '8c-setup: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?' '
 	test_create_repo 8c &&
 	(
 		cd 8c &&
@@ -2044,29 +2049,29 @@ test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' '
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' '
+test_expect_success '8c-check: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete' '
 	(
 		cd 8c &&
 
 		git checkout A^0 &&
 
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).* z/d.*y/d" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (modify/delete).* z/d" out &&
 
-		test 4 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
-		test 1 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
+		test 5 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+		test 2 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
 		test 1 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) &&
 
 		git rev-parse >actual \
-			:0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :3:y/d &&
+			:0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :1:z/d :3:z/d &&
 		git rev-parse >expect \
-			O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e B:z/d &&
+			O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e O:z/d B:z/d &&
 		test_cmp expect actual &&
 
-		test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d &&
-		test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:y/d &&
-		git ls-files -s y/d | grep ^100755 &&
-		test -f y/d
+		test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:z/d &&
+		git ls-files -s z/d | grep ^100755 &&
+		test -f z/d &&
+		! test -f y/d
 	)
 '
 
@@ -2080,16 +2085,6 @@ test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' '
 #
 #   Note: It would also be somewhat reasonable to resolve this as
 #             y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
-#   The logic being that the only difference between this testcase and 8c
-#   is that there is no modification to d.  That suggests that instead of a
-#   rename/modify vs. delete conflict, we should just have a rename/delete
-#   conflict, otherwise we are being inconsistent.
-#
-#   However...as far as consistency goes, we didn't report a conflict for
-#   path d_1 in testcase 5b due to a different file being in the way.  So,
-#   we seem to be forced to have cases where users can change things
-#   slightly and get what they may perceive as inconsistent results.  It
-#   would be nice to avoid that, but I'm not sure I see how.
 #
 #   In this case, I'm leaning towards: commit A was the one that deleted z/d
 #   and it did the rename of z to y, so the two "conflicts" (rename vs.
@@ -2802,7 +2797,7 @@ test_expect_success '9h-setup: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_failure '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
+test_expect_success '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
 	(
 		cd 9h &&
 
@@ -3783,7 +3778,7 @@ test_expect_success '12c-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ c
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_failure '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
+test_expect_success '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
 	(
 		cd 12c &&
 

-- 
2.15.0.309.g00c152f825
Previous: Elijah NewrenNext: Elijah Newren
Message 16 of 34 in “Add directory rename detection to git”
  1. 00/33 Add directory rename detection to gitElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  2. 04/33 directory rename detection: basic testcasesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  3. 06/33 directory rename detection: testcases to avoid taking detection too farElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  4. 24/33 merge-recursive: add computation of collisions due to dir rename & mergingElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  5. 22/33 merge-recursive: check for directory level conflictsElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  6. 25/33 merge-recursive: check for file level conflicts then get new nameElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  7. 29/33 merge-recursive: fix overwriting dirty files involved in renamesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  8. 30/33 merge-recursive: fix remaining directory rename + dirty overwrite casesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  9. 31/33 directory rename detection: new testcases showcasing a pair of bugsElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  10. 17/33 merge-recursive: fix leaks of allocated renames and diff_filepairsElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  11. 33/33 merge-recursive: ensure we write updates for directory-renamed fileElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  12. 28/33 merge-recursive: avoid clobbering untracked files with directory renamesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  13. 18/33 merge-recursive: make !o->detect_rename codepath more obviousElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  14. 26/33 merge-recursive: when comparing files, don't include treesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  15. 11/33 directory rename detection: testcases exploring possibly suboptimal mergesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  16. 32/33 merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renamesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  17. 21/33 merge-recursive: add get_directory_renames()Elijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  18. 10/33 directory rename detection: more involved edge/corner testcasesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  19. 27/33 merge-recursive: apply necessary modifications for directory renamesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  20. 23/33 merge-recursive: add a new hashmap for storing file collisionsElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  21. 20/33 merge-recursive: add a new hashmap for storing directory renamesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  22. 02/33 merge-recursive: fix logic ordering issueElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  23. 12/33 directory rename detection: miscellaneous testcases to complete coverageElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  24. 05/33 directory rename detection: directory splitting testcasesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  25. 19/33 merge-recursive: split out code for determining diff_filepairsElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  26. 15/33 merge-recursive: move the get_renames() functionElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  27. 16/33 merge-recursive: introduce new functions to handle rename logicElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  28. 13/33 directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting untracked filesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  29. 14/33 directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting dirty filesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  30. 03/33 merge-recursive: add explanation for src_entry and dst_entryElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  31. 01/33 Tighten and correct a few testcases for merging and cherry-pickingElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  32. 09/33 directory rename detection: testcases checking which side did the renameElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  33. 07/33 directory rename detection: partially renamed directory testcase/discussionElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017
  34. 08/33 directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renamesElijah Newren, Nov 20, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.