Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] merge-recursive: improve rename/rename(1to2)/add[/add] handling

> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:01 AM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:08 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2018 3:31 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> +                     char *new_path = NULL;
>>>> +                     if (dir_in_way(b->path, !o->call_depth, 0)) {
>>>> +                             new_path = unique_path(o, b->path, ci->branch2);
>>>> +                             output(o, 1, _("%s is a directory in %s adding "
>>>> +                                            "as %s instead"),
>>>> +                                    b->path, ci->branch1, new_path);
>>> I tried really hard, but failed to get a test to cover the block below.
>>> I was able to
>>> find that the "check handling of differently renamed file with D/F
>>> conflicts" test
>>> in t6022-merge-rename.sh covers the block above. Trying to tweak the
>>> example using
>>> untracked files seems to hit an error message from unpack-trees.c instead.
>>>
>>>> +                     } else if (would_lose_untracked(b->path)) {
>>>> +                             new_path = unique_path(o, b->path, ci->branch2);
>>>> +                             output(o, 1, _("Refusing to lose untracked file"
>>>> +                                            " at %s; adding as %s instead"),
>>>> +                                    b->path, new_path);
> So now I'm confused.  This block was not listed in your coverage
> report[1].  And, in fact, I think this block IS covered by testcase
> 10c of t6043.  However, there is a very similar looking block about 30
> lines up that is uncovered (and which was mentioned in your report):
>
>              } else if (would_lose_untracked(a->path)) {
>                  new_path = unique_path(o, a->path, ci->branch1);
>                  output(o, 1, _("Refusing to lose untracked file"
>                             " at %s; adding as %s instead"),
>                         a->path, new_path);
>
> covering it, I think, is just a matter of repeating the 10c test with
> the merge repeated in the other direction (checkout B and merge A
> instead of checking out A and merging B) -- and touching up the checks
> accordingly.
>
> However, now I'm wondering if I'm crazy.  Was it really the block you
> had highlighted that you were seeing uncovered?