merge-recursive: Fix deletion of untracked file in rename/delete conflicts
In the recursive case (o->call_depth > 0), we do not modify the working directory. However, when o->call_depth==0, file renames can mean we need to delete the old filename from the working copy. Since there have been lots of changes and mistakes here, let's go through the details. Let's start with a simple explanation of what we are trying to achieve: Original goal: If a file is renamed on the side of history being merged into head, the filename serving as the source of that rename needs to be removed from the working directory. The path to getting the above statement implemented in merge-recursive took several steps. The relevant bits of code may be instructive to keep in mind for the explanation, especially since an English-only description involves double negatives that are hard to follow. These bits of code are: int remove_file(..., const char *path, int no_wd) { ... int update_working_directory = !o->call_depth && !no_wd; and remove_file(o, 1, ren1_src, <expression>); Where the choice for <expression> has morphed over time:65ac6e9
(merge-recursive: adjust to loosened "working file clobbered" check 2006-10-27), introduced the "no_wd" parameter to remove_file() and used "1" for <expression>. This meant ren1_src was never deleted, leaving it around in the working copy. In8371234
(Remove uncontested renamed files during merge. 2006-12-13), <expression> was changed to "index_only" (where index_only == !!o->call_depth; seeb7fa51da
). This was equivalent to using "0" for <expression> (due to the early logic in remove_file), and is orthogonal to the condition we actually want to check at this point; it resulted in the source file being removed except when index_only was false. This was problematic because the file could have been renamed on the side of history including head, in which case ren1_src could correspond to an untracked file that should not be deleted. In183d797
(Keep untracked files not involved in a merge. 2007-02-04), <expression> was changed to "index_only || stage == 3". While this gives correct behavior, the "index_only ||" portion of <expression> is unnecessary and makes the code slightly harder to follow. There were also two further changes to this expression, though without any change in behavior. First inb7fa51d
(merge-recursive: get rid of the index_only global variable 2008-09-02), it was changed to "o->call_depth || stage == 3". (index_only == !!o->call_depth). Later, in41d70bd6
(merge-recursive: Small code clarification -- variable name and comments), this was changed to "o->call_depth || renamed_stage == 2" (where stage was renamed to other_stage and renamed_stage == other_stage ^ 1). So we ended with <expression> being "o->call_depth || renamed_stage == 2". But the "o->call_depth ||" piece was unnecessary. We can remove it, leaving us with <expression> being "renamed_stage == 2". This doesn't change behavior at all, but it makes the code clearer. Which is good, because it's about to get uglier. Corrected goal: If a file is renamed on the side of history being merged into head, the filename serving as the source of that rename needs to be removed from the working directory *IF* that file is tracked in head AND the file tracked in head is related to the original file. Note that the only difference between the original goal and the corrected goal is the two extra conditions added at the end. The first condition is relevant in a rename/delete conflict. If the file was deleted on the HEAD side of the merge and an untracked file of the same name was added to the working copy, then without that extra condition the untracked file will be erroneously deleted. This changes <expression> to "renamed_stage == 2 || !was_tracked(ren1_src)". The second additional condition is relevant in two cases. The first case the second condition can occur is when a file is deleted and a completely different file is added with the same name. To my knowledge, merge-recursive has no mechanism for detecting deleted-and- replaced-by-different-file cases, so I am simply punting on this possibility. The second case for the second condition to occur is when there is a rename/rename/add-source conflict. That is, when the original file was renamed on both sides of history AND the original filename is being re-used by some unrelated (but tracked) content. This case also presents some additional difficulties for us since we cannot currently detect these rename/rename/add-source conflicts; as long as the rename detection logic "optimizes" by ignoring filenames that are present at both ends of the diff, these conflicts will go unnoticed. However, rename/rename conflicts are handled by an entirely separate codepath not being discussed here, so this case is not relevant for the line of code under consideration. In summary: Change <expression> from "o->call_depth || renamed_stage == 2" to "renamed_stage == 2 || !was_tracked(ren1_src)", in order to remove unnecessary code and avoid deleting untracked files. 96 lines of explanation in the changelog to describe a one-line fix... Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
b8ddf16424
commit
531357a4cc
@ -1115,7 +1115,8 @@ static int process_renames(struct merge_options *o,
|
||||
int renamed_stage = a_renames == renames1 ? 2 : 3;
|
||||
int other_stage = a_renames == renames1 ? 3 : 2;
|
||||
|
||||
remove_file(o, 1, ren1_src, o->call_depth || renamed_stage == 2);
|
||||
remove_file(o, 1, ren1_src,
|
||||
renamed_stage == 2 || !was_tracked(ren1_src));
|
||||
|
||||
hashcpy(src_other.sha1, ren1->src_entry->stages[other_stage].sha);
|
||||
src_other.mode = ren1->src_entry->stages[other_stage].mode;
|
||||
|
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ test_expect_success 'setup rename/delete + untracked file' '
|
||||
echo "Myyy PRECIOUSSS" >ring
|
||||
'
|
||||
|
||||
test_expect_failure "Does git preserve Gollum's precious artifact?" '
|
||||
test_expect_success "Does git preserve Gollum's precious artifact?" '
|
||||
test_must_fail git merge -s recursive rename-the-ring &&
|
||||
|
||||
# Make sure git did not delete an untracked file
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user