[PATCH v5 33/34] merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renames
- From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 28, 2017, 04:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20171228041352.27880-34-newren@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20171228041352.27880-1-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 fe42cabad..d00786f71 100644 --- a/merge-recursive.c +++ b/merge-recursive.c @@ -1951,7 +1951,7 @@ static void compute_collisions(struct hashmap *collisions, char *new_path; struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i]; - if (pair->status == 'D') + if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R') continue; dir_rename_ent = check_dir_renamed(pair->two->path, dir_renames); @@ -2178,7 +2178,7 @@ 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 != 'A' && pair->status != 'R') { diff_free_filepair(pair); continue; } diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh index 0c205fac5..ccfe48596 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. @@ -2804,7 +2799,7 @@ 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 && @@ -3785,7 +3780,7 @@ 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 &&
-- 2.15.0.408.g8e199d483