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

merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renames

Browse Source 
If a file on one side of history was renamed, and merely modified on the
other side, then applying a directory rename to the modified side gives us
a rename/rename(1to2) conflict.  We should only apply directory renames to
pairs representing either adds or renames.

Making this change means that a directory rename testcase that was
previously reported as a rename/delete conflict will now be reported as a
modify/delete conflict.

Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
Elijah Newren 2018-02-14 10:52:05 -08:00 committed by Junio C Hamano
parent 8f581e3a47
commit febb3a8609
2 changed files with 26 additions and 31 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
merge-recursive.c
View File

@ -1982,7 +1982,7 @@ static void compute_collisions(struct hashmap *collisions,
char *new_path;
struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i];
if (pair->status == 'D')
if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R')
continue;
dir_rename_ent = check_dir_renamed(pair->two->path,
dir_renames);
@ -2209,7 +2209,7 @@ static struct string_list *get_renames(struct merge_options *o,
struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i];
char *new_path; /* non-NULL only with directory renames */
if (pair->status == 'D') {
if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R') {
diff_free_filepair(pair);
continue;
}

53
t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
View File

@ -2078,18 +2078,23 @@ test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, w
)
'
# Testcase 8c, rename+modify/delete
# (Related to testcases 5b and 8d)
# Testcase 8c, modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?
# (Related to testcases 5b, 8d, and 9h)
# Commit O: z/{b,c,d}
# Commit A: y/{b,c}
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_modified,e}
# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename+modify/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(modify/delete: on z/d)
#
# Note: This testcase doesn't present any concerns for me...until you
# compare it with testcases 5b and 8d. See notes in 8d for more
# details.
# Note: It could easily be argued that the correct resolution here is
# y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: z/d -> y/d vs deleted)
# and that the modifed version of d should be present in y/ after
# the merge, just marked as conflicted. Indeed, I previously did
# argue that. But applying directory renames to the side of
# history where a file is merely modified results in spurious
# rename/rename(1to2) conflicts -- see testcase 9h. See also
# notes in 8d.
test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' '
test_expect_success '8c-setup: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?' '
test_create_repo 8c &&
(
cd 8c &&
@ -2122,32 +2127,32 @@ test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' '
)
'
test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' '
test_expect_success '8c-check: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete' '
(
cd 8c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).* z/d.*y/d" out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (modify/delete).* z/d" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
test_line_count = 5 out &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 1 out &&
test_line_count = 2 out &&
git ls-files -o >out &&
test_line_count = 1 out &&
git rev-parse >actual \
:0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :3:y/d &&
:0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :1:z/d :3:z/d &&
git rev-parse >expect \
O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e B:z/d &&
O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e O:z/d B:z/d &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d &&
test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:y/d &&
git ls-files -s y/d | grep ^100755 &&
test_path_is_file y/d
test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:z/d &&
git ls-files -s z/d | grep ^100755 &&
test_path_is_file z/d &&
test_path_is_missing y/d
)
'
@ -2161,16 +2166,6 @@ test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' '
#
# Note: It would also be somewhat reasonable to resolve this as
# y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
# The logic being that the only difference between this testcase and 8c
# is that there is no modification to d. That suggests that instead of a
# rename/modify vs. delete conflict, we should just have a rename/delete
# conflict, otherwise we are being inconsistent.
#
# However...as far as consistency goes, we didn't report a conflict for
# path d_1 in testcase 5b due to a different file being in the way. So,
# we seem to be forced to have cases where users can change things
# slightly and get what they may perceive as inconsistent results. It
# would be nice to avoid that, but I'm not sure I see how.
#
# In this case, I'm leaning towards: commit A was the one that deleted z/d
# and it did the rename of z to y, so the two "conflicts" (rename vs.
@ -2915,7 +2910,7 @@ test_expect_success '9h-setup: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
)
'
test_expect_failure '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
test_expect_success '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
(
cd 9h &&
@ -3959,7 +3954,7 @@ test_expect_success '12c-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ c
)
'
test_expect_failure '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
test_expect_success '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
(
cd 12c &&