Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] merge-ort: add implementation of rename/delete conflicts

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2020, 17:07 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BFbiszLAbWgF_qgHCxRgw4CBeiGnAHE8ErNYm4iAjiVXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <05f52d13-d9ec-226d-370a-140937b12e7a@gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 6:23 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 132 quoted lines

>
> On 12/14/2020 11:21 AM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> >
> > Implement rename/delete conflicts, i.e. one side renames a file and the
> > other deletes the file.  This code replaces the following from
> > merge-recurisve.c:
> >
> >   * the code relevant to RENAME_DELETE in process_renames()
> >   * the RENAME_DELETE case of process_entry()
> >   * handle_rename_delete()
> >
> > Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple
> > different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or
> > other rename cases):
> >
> >   * handle_change_delete()
> >   * setup_rename_conflict_info()
> >
> > The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible
> > by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info
> > entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then
> > handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete,
> > etc.) orthogonally.  This means we're much less likely to miss special
> > implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see
> > commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'",
> > 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved
> > directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details).
> > That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled
> > orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically
> > simplifies the code for various special rename cases.
> >
> > To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here, because
> > rename/delete cases will also trigger the modify/delete codepath.
> > However, we only want a modify/delete message to be printed for a
> > rename/delete conflict if there is a content change in the renamed file
> > in addition to the rename.  So process_renames() and process_entry()
> > aren't quite fully orthogonal, but they are pretty close.
>
> Thanks for adding this warning about the change to process_entry().
>
> > @@ -657,6 +657,7 @@ static int process_renames(struct merge_options *opt,
> >               unsigned int old_sidemask;
> >               int target_index, other_source_index;
> >               int source_deleted, collision, type_changed;
> > +             const char *rename_branch = NULL, *delete_branch = NULL;
>
> Ah, here they are!
>
> > +             if (source_deleted) {
> > +                     if (target_index == 1) {
> > +                             rename_branch = opt->branch1;
> > +                             delete_branch = opt->branch2;
> > +                     } else {
> > +                             rename_branch = opt->branch2;
> > +                             delete_branch = opt->branch1;
> > +                     }
> >               }
> >
> >               assert(source_deleted || oldinfo->filemask & old_sidemask);
> > @@ -838,13 +847,26 @@ static int process_renames(struct merge_options *opt,
> >                                  "to %s in %s, but deleted in %s."),
> >                                oldpath, newpath, rename_branch, delete_branch);
>
> This context line is the previous use of rename_branch and delete_branch.
> Perhaps the declarations, initialization, and first-use here are worth
> their own patch?
>
> >               } else {
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * a few different cases...start by copying the
> > +                      * existing stage(s) from oldinfo over the newinfo
> > +                      * and update the pathname(s).
> > +                      */
> > +                     memcpy(&newinfo->stages[0], &oldinfo->stages[0],
> > +                            sizeof(newinfo->stages[0]));
> > +                     newinfo->filemask |= (1 << MERGE_BASE);
> > +                     newinfo->pathnames[0] = oldpath;
> >                       if (type_changed) {
> >                               /* rename vs. typechange */
> >                               die("Not yet implemented");
> >                       } else if (source_deleted) {
> >                               /* rename/delete */
> > +                             newinfo->path_conflict = 1;
> > +                             path_msg(opt, newpath, 0,
> > +                                      _("CONFLICT (rename/delete): %s renamed"
> > +                                        " to %s in %s, but deleted in %s."),
> > +                                      oldpath, newpath,
> > +                                      rename_branch, delete_branch);
>
> Since the primary purpose of rename_branch and delete_branch appears to
> be for these error messages, then likely the previous error message about
> a rename/delete should just be promoted into this patch instead of the
> previous.
>
> In fact, the error messages are the exact same, but with slightly different
> lines due to wrapping:
>
>                         path_msg(opt, newpath, 0,
>                                  _("CONFLICT (rename/delete): %s renamed "
>                                    "to %s in %s, but deleted in %s."),
>                                  oldpath, newpath, rename_branch, delete_branch);
>
> and
>
>                                 path_msg(opt, newpath, 0,
>                                          _("CONFLICT (rename/delete): %s renamed"
>                                            " to %s in %s, but deleted in %s."),
>                                          oldpath, newpath,
>                                          rename_branch, delete_branch);
>
> I wonder if there is a way to group these together? Perhaps the nested
> if/else if/else blocks could store a "conflict state" value that says
> which CONFLICT message to print after the complicated branching is done.
>
> Alternatively, this message appears to be written in the following case:
>
>         source_deleted && !type_changed
>
> your if/else if/else block could be rearranged as follows:
>
>         if (collision && !source_deleted)
>                 /* collision: rename/add or rename/rename(2to1) */
>         else if (!type_change && source_deleted)
>                 /* rename/delete or rename/add/delete or rename/rename(2to1)/delete */
>         else if (!collision)
>                 /* a few different cases */
>
> Of course, the thing I am missing is that copy of oldinfo->stages[0] into
> newinfo->stages[0] along with changes to the filemask and pathnames! That
> is likely why you need the two different markers, because the cases truly
> are different in that subtle way.

Yeah, there is that subtlety and another one -- the rename/add/delete case will also later trigger the "add/add" conflict type within process_entries() for this same path, whereas the rename/delete case from this patch won't. The combination is enough of a difference that I'm worried that trying to make both types run through the same code block might blur the differences and pose a landmine for future folks coming to edit the code; it'd make it too easy to break one or the other conflict type.

If the sharing was done a different way, namely saving the basic message in some variable before either if-block and then both places just pass that string to path_msg() instead of both having it typed out, then that'd probably make sense, but then we're not really saving much.

Show 30 quoted lines

> >                               /* normal rename */
> >                               die("Not yet implemented");
> > @@ -1380,12 +1402,21 @@ static void process_entry(struct merge_options *opt,
> >               modify_branch = (side == 1) ? opt->branch1 : opt->branch2;
> >               delete_branch = (side == 1) ? opt->branch2 : opt->branch1;
> >
> > -             path_msg(opt, path, 0,
> > -                      _("CONFLICT (modify/delete): %s deleted in %s "
> > -                        "and modified in %s.  Version %s of %s left "
> > -                        "in tree."),
> > -                      path, delete_branch, modify_branch,
> > -                      modify_branch, path);
> > +             if (ci->path_conflict &&
> > +                 oideq(&ci->stages[0].oid, &ci->stages[side].oid)) {
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * This came from a rename/delete; no action to take,
> > +                      * but avoid printing "modify/delete" conflict notice
> > +                      * since the contents were not modified.
> > +                      */
> > +             } else {
> > +                     path_msg(opt, path, 0,
> > +                              _("CONFLICT (modify/delete): %s deleted in %s "
> > +                                "and modified in %s.  Version %s of %s left "
> > +                                "in tree."),
> > +                              path, delete_branch, modify_branch,
> > +                              modify_branch, path);
> > +             }
>
> Thanks,
> -Stolee