2017-01-28 21:37:01 +01:00
|
|
|
#!/bin/sh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_description='Merge-recursive rename/delete conflict message'
|
2020-11-19 00:44:38 +01:00
|
|
|
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main
|
tests: mark tests relying on the current default for `init.defaultBranch`
In addition to the manual adjustment to let the `linux-gcc` CI job run
the test suite with `master` and then with `main`, this patch makes sure
that GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME is set in all test scripts
that currently rely on the initial branch name being `master by default.
To determine which test scripts to mark up, the first step was to
force-set the default branch name to `master` in
- all test scripts that contain the keyword `master`,
- t4211, which expects `t/t4211/history.export` with a hard-coded ref to
initialize the default branch,
- t5560 because it sources `t/t556x_common` which uses `master`,
- t8002 and t8012 because both source `t/annotate-tests.sh` which also
uses `master`)
This trick was performed by this command:
$ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/\(test-lib\|lib-\(bash\|cvs\|git-svn\)\|gitweb-lib\)\.sh$/i\
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\
' $(git grep -l master t/t[0-9]*.sh) \
t/t4211*.sh t/t5560*.sh t/t8002*.sh t/t8012*.sh
After that, careful, manual inspection revealed that some of the test
scripts containing the needle `master` do not actually rely on a
specific default branch name: either they mention `master` only in a
comment, or they initialize that branch specificially, or they do not
actually refer to the current default branch. Therefore, the
aforementioned modification was undone in those test scripts thusly:
$ git checkout HEAD -- \
t/t0027-auto-crlf.sh t/t0060-path-utils.sh \
t/t1011-read-tree-sparse-checkout.sh \
t/t1305-config-include.sh t/t1309-early-config.sh \
t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh t/t1450-fsck.sh \
t/t2024-checkout-dwim.sh \
t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh \
t/t3040-subprojects-basic.sh t/t3301-notes.sh \
t/t3308-notes-merge.sh t/t3423-rebase-reword.sh \
t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh \
t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh t/t4257-am-interactive.sh \
t/t5323-pack-redundant.sh t/t5401-update-hooks.sh \
t/t5511-refspec.sh t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh \
t/t5529-push-errors.sh t/t5530-upload-pack-error.sh \
t/t5548-push-porcelain.sh \
t/t5552-skipping-fetch-negotiator.sh \
t/t5572-pull-submodule.sh t/t5608-clone-2gb.sh \
t/t5614-clone-submodules-shallow.sh \
t/t7508-status.sh t/t7606-merge-custom.sh \
t/t9302-fast-import-unpack-limit.sh
We excluded one set of test scripts in these commands, though: the range
of `git p4` tests. The reason? `git p4` stores the (foreign) remote
branch in the branch called `p4/master`, which is obviously not the
default branch. Manual analysis revealed that only five of these tests
actually require a specific default branch name to pass; They were
modified thusly:
$ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/lib-git-p4\.sh$/i\
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\
' t/t980[0167]*.sh t/t9811*.sh
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19 00:44:19 +01:00
|
|
|
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
|
|
|
|
|
|
leak tests: mark passing SANITIZE=leak tests as leak-free
Mark those remaining tests that pass when run under SANITIZE=leak with
TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true, these were either omitted in
f346fcb62a0 (Merge branch 'ab/mark-leak-free-tests-even-more',
2021-12-15) and 5a4f8381b68 (Merge branch 'ab/mark-leak-free-tests',
2021-10-25), or have had their memory leaks fixed since then.
With this change there's now a a one-to-one mapping between those
tests that we have opted-in via "TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true", and
those that pass with the new "check" mode:
GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check \
GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true \
make test SANITIZE=leak
Note that the "GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true" is needed due to the
edge cases noted in a preceding commit, i.e. in some cases we'd pass
the test itself, but still have outstanding leaks due to ignored exit
codes.
The "GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true" corrects for that, we're only
marking those tests as passing that really don't have any leaks,
whether that was reflected in their exit code or not.
Note that the change here to "t9100-git-svn-basic.sh" is marking that
test as passing under SANITIZE=leak, we're removing a
"TEST_FAILS_SANITIZE_LEAK=true" line, not
"TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true". See 7a98d9ab00d (revisions API: have
release_revisions() release "cmdline", 2022-04-13) for the
introduction of that t/lib-git-svn.sh-specific variable.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-07-28 01:13:41 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
|
2017-01-28 21:37:01 +01:00
|
|
|
. ./test-lib.sh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_expect_success 'rename/delete' '
|
|
|
|
|
echo foo >A &&
|
|
|
|
|
git add A &&
|
|
|
|
|
git commit -m "initial" &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git checkout -b rename &&
|
|
|
|
|
git mv A B &&
|
|
|
|
|
git commit -m "rename" &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-19 00:44:38 +01:00
|
|
|
git checkout main &&
|
2017-01-28 21:37:01 +01:00
|
|
|
git rm A &&
|
|
|
|
|
git commit -m "delete" &&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail git merge --strategy=recursive rename >output &&
|
t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages
t6425 was very picky about the exact output message produced by a
rename/delete conflict, in a way that just scratches the surface of the
mess that was built into merge-recursive. The idea was that it would
try to find the possible combinations of different conflict types, and
when more than one was present for one path, it would try to provide a
combined message that covered all the cases.
There's a lot to unravel here...
First, there's a basic conflict type known as modify/delete, which is a
content conflict. It occurs when one side deletes a file, but the other
modifies it.
There is also a path conflict known as a rename/delete. This occurs
when one side deletes a path, and the other renames it. This is not a
content conflict, it is a path conflict. It will often occur in
combination with a content conflict, though, namely a modify/delete. As
such, these two were often combined.
Another type of conflict that can exist is a directory/file conflict.
For example, one side adds a new file at some path, and the other side
of history adds a directory at the same path. The path that was "added"
could have been put there by a rename, though. Thus, we have the
possibility of a single path being affected by a modify/delete, a
rename/delete, and a directory/file conflict.
In part, this was a natural by-product of merge-recursive's design.
Since it was doing a four way merge with the contents of the working
tree being the fourth factor it had to consider, it had working tree
handling spread all over the code. It also had directory/file conflict
handling spread everywhere through all the other types of conflicts.
And our testsuite has a huge number of directory/file conflict tests
because trying to get them right required modifying so many different
codepaths. A natural outgrowth of this kind of structure is conflict
messages that combine all the different types that the current codepath
is considering.
However, if we want to make the different conflict types orthogonal and
avoid repeating ourselves and getting very brittle code, then we need to
split the messages from these different conflict types apart. Besides,
trying to determine all possible permutations is a _royal_ mess. The
code to handle the rename/delete/directory/file conflict output is
already somewhat hard to parse, and is somewhat brittle. But if we
really wanted to go that route, then we'd have to have special handling
for the following types of combinations:
* rename/add/delete:
on side of history that didn't rename the given file, remove the file
instead and place an unrelated file in the way of the rename
* rename/rename(2to1)/mode conflict/delete/delete:
two different files, one executable and the other not, are renamed
to the same location, each side deletes the source file that the
other side renames
* rename/rename(1to2)/add/add:
file renamed differently on each side of history, with each side
placing an unrelated file in the way of the other
* rename/rename(1to2)/content conflict/file location/(D/F)/(D/F)/:
both sides modify a file in conflicting way, both rename that file
but to different paths, one side renames the directory which the
other side had renamed that file into causing it to possibly need a
transitive rename, and each side puts a directory in the way of the
other's path.
Let's back away from this path of insanity, and allow the different
types of conflicts to be handled by separate pieces of non-repeated code
by allowing the conflict messages to be split into their separate types.
(If multiple conflict types affect a single path, the conflict messages
can be printed sequentially.) Start this path with a simple change:
modify this test to be more flexible and accept the output either merge
backend (recursive or the new ort) will produce.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-08-11 00:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete): A.* renamed .*to B.* in rename" output &&
|
|
|
|
|
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete): A.*deleted in HEAD." output
|
2017-01-28 21:37:01 +01:00
|
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
test_done
|