git-commit-vandalism/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh

379 lines
8.7 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
test_description='basic rebase topology tests'
. ./test-lib.sh
. "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/lib-rebase.sh
# a---b---c
# \
# d---e
test_expect_success 'setup' '
test_commit a &&
test_commit b &&
test_commit c &&
git checkout b &&
test_commit d &&
test_commit e
'
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "simple rebase $*" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* c e &&
test_cmp_rev c HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'd e' c..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_expect_success 'setup branches and remote tracking' '
git tag -l >tags &&
for tag in $(cat tags)
do
git branch branch-$tag $tag || return 1
done &&
git remote add origin "file://$PWD" &&
git fetch origin
'
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* is no-op if upstream is an ancestor" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* b e &&
test_cmp_rev e HEAD
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* -f rewrites even if upstream is an ancestor" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* -f b e &&
test_cmp_rev ! e HEAD &&
test_cmp_rev b HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'd e' b..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success --fork-point
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase failure -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* -f rewrites even if remote upstream is an ancestor" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* -f branch-b branch-e &&
test_cmp_rev ! branch-e origin/branch-e &&
test_cmp_rev branch-b HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'd e' branch-b..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success --fork-point
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* fast-forwards from ancestor of upstream" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* e b &&
test_cmp_rev e HEAD
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success --fork-point
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
# f
# /
# a---b---c---g---h
# \
# d---gp--i
#
# gp = cherry-picked g
# h = reverted g
#
# Reverted patches are there for tests to be able to check if a commit
# that introduced the same change as another commit is
# dropped. Without reverted commits, we could get false positives
# because applying the patch succeeds, but simply results in no
# changes.
test_expect_success 'setup of linear history for range selection tests' '
git checkout c &&
test_commit g &&
revert h g &&
git checkout d &&
cherry_pick gp g &&
test_commit i &&
git checkout b &&
test_commit f
'
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* drops patches in upstream" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* h i &&
test_cmp_rev h HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'd i' h..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior, modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by re-implementing it on top of the latter. Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c. This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes: * The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples) * A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421) * bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use; this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903) testcase modification notes: t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am, rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect --merge and --interactive to have the same output. t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo! t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is now REBASE-i. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 17:11:39 +01:00
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* can drop last patch if in upstream" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* h gp &&
test_cmp_rev h HEAD^ &&
test_linear_range 'd' h..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior, modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by re-implementing it on top of the latter. Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c. This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes: * The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples) * A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421) * bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use; this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903) testcase modification notes: t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am, rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect --merge and --interactive to have the same output. t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo! t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is now REBASE-i. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 17:11:39 +01:00
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --onto drops patches in upstream" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* --onto f h i &&
test_cmp_rev f HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'd i' f..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior, modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by re-implementing it on top of the latter. Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c. This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes: * The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples) * A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421) * bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use; this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903) testcase modification notes: t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am, rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect --merge and --interactive to have the same output. t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo! t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is now REBASE-i. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 17:11:39 +01:00
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --onto does not drop patches in onto" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* --onto h f i &&
test_cmp_rev h HEAD~3 &&
test_linear_range 'd gp i' h..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
# a---b---c---j!
# \
# d---k!--l
#
# ! = empty
test_expect_success 'setup of linear history for empty commit tests' '
git checkout c &&
make_empty j &&
git checkout d &&
make_empty k &&
test_commit l
'
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the --keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior. The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there directly applies here. It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare, which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with --allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have --keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure. Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/ which noted Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases. and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general how those flags should behave otherwise. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:24 +01:00
test_expect_$result "rebase $* keeps begin-empty commits" "
reset_rebase &&
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the --keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior. The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there directly applies here. It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare, which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with --allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have --keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure. Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/ which noted Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases. and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general how those flags should behave otherwise. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:24 +01:00
git rebase $* j l &&
test_cmp_rev c HEAD~4 &&
test_linear_range 'j d k l' c..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase failure --apply
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the --keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior. The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there directly applies here. It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare, which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with --allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have --keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure. Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/ which noted Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases. and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general how those flags should behave otherwise. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:24 +01:00
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase failure -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was: 1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an override flag 2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with every rebase). While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial. Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving --keep-empty as the default. This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop commits they don't want with an interactive rebase. Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com> Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 04:44:25 +02:00
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --no-keep-empty drops begin-empty commits" "
reset_rebase &&
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was: 1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an override flag 2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with every rebase). While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial. Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving --keep-empty as the default. This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop commits they don't want with an interactive rebase. Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com> Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 04:44:25 +02:00
git rebase $* --no-keep-empty c l &&
test_cmp_rev c HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'd l' c..
"
}
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the --keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior. The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there directly applies here. It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare, which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with --allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have --keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure. Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/ which noted Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases. and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general how those flags should behave otherwise. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:24 +01:00
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --keep-empty keeps empty even if already in upstream" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* --keep-empty j l &&
test_cmp_rev j HEAD~3 &&
test_linear_range 'd k l' j..
"
}
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the --keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior. The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there directly applies here. It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare, which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with --allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have --keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure. Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/ which noted Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases. and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general how those flags should behave otherwise. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:24 +01:00
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase success --rebase-merges
# m
# /
# a---b---c---g
#
# x---y---bp
#
# bp = cherry-picked b
# m = reverted b
#
# Reverted patches are there for tests to be able to check if a commit
# that introduced the same change as another commit is
# dropped. Without reverted commits, we could get false positives
# because applying the patch succeeds, but simply results in no
# changes.
test_expect_success 'setup of linear history for test involving root' '
git checkout b &&
revert m b &&
git checkout --orphan disjoint &&
git rm -rf . &&
test_commit x &&
test_commit y &&
cherry_pick bp b
'
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --onto --root" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* --onto c --root y &&
test_cmp_rev c HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'x y' c..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* without --onto --root with disjoint history" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* c y &&
test_cmp_rev c HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'x y' c..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase failure -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --onto --root drops patch in onto" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* --onto m --root bp &&
test_cmp_rev m HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'x y' m..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior, modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by re-implementing it on top of the latter. Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c. This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes: * The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples) * A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421) * bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use; this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903) testcase modification notes: t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am, rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect --merge and --interactive to have the same output. t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo! t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is now REBASE-i. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 17:11:39 +01:00
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --onto --root with merge-base does not go to root" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* --onto m --root g &&
test_cmp_rev m HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'c g' m..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase failure -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* without --onto --root with disjoint history drops patch in onto" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* m bp &&
test_cmp_rev m HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'x y' m..
"
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 22:36:41 +01:00
test_run_rebase success --apply
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior, modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by re-implementing it on top of the latter. Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c. This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes: * The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples) * A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421) * bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use; this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903) testcase modification notes: t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am, rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect --merge and --interactive to have the same output. t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo! t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is now REBASE-i. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 17:11:39 +01:00
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase failure -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* --root on linear history is a no-op" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* --root c &&
test_cmp_rev c HEAD
"
}
test_run_rebase success ''
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase failure -p
test_run_rebase () {
result=$1
shift
test_expect_$result "rebase $* -f --root on linear history causes re-write" "
reset_rebase &&
git rebase $* -f --root c &&
test_cmp_rev ! a HEAD~2 &&
test_linear_range 'a b c' HEAD
"
}
test_run_rebase success ''
test_run_rebase success -m
test_run_rebase success -i
test_have_prereq !REBASE_P || test_run_rebase success -p
test_done