undef/git-commit-vandalism
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

t6416, t6423: clarify some comments and fix some typos

Browse Source 
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
Elijah Newren 2020-08-10 22:29:15 +00:00 committed by Junio C Hamano
parent a1d8b01775
commit 6c74948f20
2 changed files with 13 additions and 14 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
t/t6416-recursive-corner-cases.sh
View File

@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git detects conflict merging criss-cross+modify/delete, rev
#
# So choice 5 at least provides some kind of conflict for the original case,
# and can merge cleanly as expected with D1 and E3. It also made things just
# slightly funny for merging D1 and e$, where E4 is defined as:
# slightly funny for merging D1 and E4, where E4 is defined as:
# Commit E4: Merge B & C, modifying 'a' and renaming to 'a2', and deleting 'a/'
# in this case, we'll get a rename/rename(1to2) conflict because a~$UNIQUE
# gets renamed to 'a' in D1 and to 'a2' in E4. But that's better than having

25
t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
View File

@ -2260,24 +2260,23 @@ test_expect_success '8d: rename/delete...or not?' '
# Commit B: w/{b,c}, z/d
#
# Possible Resolutions:
# w/o dir-rename detection: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
# Currently expected: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
# Optimal: ??
# if z not considered renamed: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
# if z->y rename considered: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
# Optimal: ??
#
# Notes: In commit A, directory z got renamed to y. In commit B, directory z
# did NOT get renamed; the directory is still present; instead it is
# considered to have just renamed a subset of paths in directory z
# elsewhere. Therefore, the directory rename done in commit A to z/
# applies to z/d and maps it to y/d.
# elsewhere. However, this is much like testcase 6b (where commit B
# moves all the original paths out of z/ but opted to keep d
# within z/). This makes it hard to judge where d should end up.
#
# It's possible that users would get confused about this, but what
# should we do instead? Silently leaving at z/d seems just as bad or
# maybe even worse. Perhaps we could print a big warning about z/d
# and how we're moving to y/d in this case, but when I started thinking
# about the ramifications of doing that, I didn't know how to rule out
# that opening other weird edge and corner cases so I just punted.
# should we do instead? It's not at all clear to me whether z/d or
# y/d or something else is a better resolution here, and other cases
# start getting really tricky, so I just picked one.
test_setup_8e () {
test_create_repo 8e &&
@ -4405,7 +4404,7 @@ test_expect_success '13b(info): messages for transitive rename with conflicted c
# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/{d,e}
# Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, x/e
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d}, x/e
# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, with info or conflict messages for d (
# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, x/e, with info or conflict messages for d
# A: renamed x/d -> z/d; B: renamed z/ -> y/ AND renamed x/d to y/d
# One could argue A had partial knowledge of what was done with
# d and B had full knowledge, but that's a slippery slope as