diff options
Diffstat (limited to 't/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh')
| -rwxr-xr-x | t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh | 1799 |
1 files changed, 1799 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh b/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000000..7fddcc8c73 --- /dev/null +++ b/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh @@ -0,0 +1,1799 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +test_description='recursive merge corner cases involving criss-cross merges' + +. ./test-lib.sh + +# +# L1 L2 +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# o X ? +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# R1 R2 +# + +test_expect_success 'setup basic criss-cross + rename with no modifications' ' + test_create_repo basic-rename && + ( + cd basic-rename && + + ten="0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9" && + for i in $ten + do + echo line $i in a sample file + done >one && + for i in $ten + do + echo line $i in another sample file + done >two && + git add one two && + test_tick && git commit -m initial && + + git branch L1 && + git checkout -b R1 && + git mv one three && + test_tick && git commit -m R1 && + + git checkout L1 && + git mv two three && + test_tick && git commit -m L1 && + + git checkout L1^0 && + test_tick && git merge -s ours R1 && + git tag L2 && + + git checkout R1^0 && + test_tick && git merge -s ours L1 && + git tag R2 + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge simple rename+criss-cross with no modifications' ' + ( + cd basic-rename && + + git reset --hard && + git checkout L2^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive R2^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + L2:three R2:three && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :2:three :3:three && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# +# Same as before, but modify L1 slightly: +# +# L1m L2 +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# o X ? +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# R1 R2 +# + +test_expect_success 'setup criss-cross + rename merges with basic modification' ' + test_create_repo rename-modify && + ( + cd rename-modify && + + ten="0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9" && + for i in $ten + do + echo line $i in a sample file + done >one && + for i in $ten + do + echo line $i in another sample file + done >two && + git add one two && + test_tick && git commit -m initial && + + git branch L1 && + git checkout -b R1 && + git mv one three && + echo more >>two && + git add two && + test_tick && git commit -m R1 && + + git checkout L1 && + git mv two three && + test_tick && git commit -m L1 && + + git checkout L1^0 && + test_tick && git merge -s ours R1 && + git tag L2 && + + git checkout R1^0 && + test_tick && git merge -s ours L1 && + git tag R2 + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge criss-cross + rename merges with basic modification' ' + ( + cd rename-modify && + + git checkout L2^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive R2^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + L2:three R2:three && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :2:three :3:three && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# +# For the next test, we start with three commits in two lines of development +# which setup a rename/add conflict: +# Commit A: File 'a' exists +# Commit B: Rename 'a' -> 'new_a' +# Commit C: Modify 'a', create different 'new_a' +# Later, two different people merge and resolve differently: +# Commit D: Merge B & C, ignoring separately created 'new_a' +# Commit E: Merge B & C making use of some piece of secondary 'new_a' +# Finally, someone goes to merge D & E. Does git detect the conflict? +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# + +test_expect_success 'setup differently handled merges of rename/add conflict' ' + test_create_repo rename-add && + ( + cd rename-add && + + printf "0\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n" >a && + git add a && + test_tick && git commit -m A && + + git branch B && + git checkout -b C && + echo 10 >>a && + test_write_lines 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 foobar >new_a && + git add a new_a && + test_tick && git commit -m C && + + git checkout B && + git mv a new_a && + test_tick && git commit -m B && + + git checkout B^0 && + test_must_fail git merge C && + git show :2:new_a >new_a && + git add new_a && + test_tick && git commit -m D && + git tag D && + + git checkout C^0 && + test_must_fail git merge B && + test_write_lines 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bad_merge >new_a && + git add -u && + test_tick && git commit -m E && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'git detects differently handled merges conflict' ' + ( + cd rename-add && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + C:new_a D:new_a E:new_a && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :1:new_a :2:new_a :3:new_a && + test_cmp expect actual && + + # Test that the two-way merge in new_a is as expected + git cat-file -p D:new_a >ours && + git cat-file -p E:new_a >theirs && + >empty && + test_must_fail git merge-file \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "" \ + -L "E^0" \ + ours empty theirs && + sed -e "s/^\([<=>]\)/\1\1\1/" ours >expect && + git hash-object new_a >actual && + git hash-object ours >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Repeat the above testcase with precisely the same setup, other than with +# the two merge bases having different orderings of commit timestamps so +# that they are reversed in the order they are provided to merge-recursive, +# so that we can improve code coverage. +test_expect_success 'git detects differently handled merges conflict, swapped' ' + ( + cd rename-add && + + # Difference #1: Do cleanup from previous testrun + git reset --hard && + git clean -fdqx && + + # Difference #2: Change commit timestamps + btime=$(git log --no-walk --date=raw --format=%cd B | awk "{print \$1}") && + ctime=$(git log --no-walk --date=raw --format=%cd C | awk "{print \$1}") && + newctime=$(($btime+1)) && + git fast-export --no-data --all | sed -e s/$ctime/$newctime/ | git fast-import --force --quiet && + # End of differences; rest is copy-paste of last test + + git checkout D^0 && + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + C:new_a D:new_a E:new_a && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :1:new_a :2:new_a :3:new_a && + test_cmp expect actual && + + # Test that the two-way merge in new_a is as expected + git cat-file -p D:new_a >ours && + git cat-file -p E:new_a >theirs && + >empty && + test_must_fail git merge-file \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "" \ + -L "E^0" \ + ours empty theirs && + sed -e "s/^\([<=>]\)/\1\1\1/" ours >expect && + git hash-object new_a >actual && + git hash-object ours >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross + modify/delete: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: file with contents 'A\n' +# Commit B: file with contents 'B\n' +# Commit C: file not present +# Commit D: file with contents 'B\n' +# Commit E: file not present +# +# Merging commits D & E should result in modify/delete conflict. + +test_expect_success 'setup criss-cross + modify/delete resolved differently' ' + test_create_repo modify-delete && + ( + cd modify-delete && + + echo A >file && + git add file && + test_tick && + git commit -m A && + + git branch B && + git checkout -b C && + git rm file && + test_tick && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout B && + echo B >file && + git add file && + test_tick && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout B^0 && + test_must_fail git merge C && + echo B >file && + git add file && + test_tick && + git commit -m D && + git tag D && + + git checkout C^0 && + test_must_fail git merge B && + git rm file && + test_tick && + git commit -m E && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'git detects conflict merging criss-cross+modify/delete' ' + ( + cd modify-delete && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + master:file B:file && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :1:file :2:file && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'git detects conflict merging criss-cross+modify/delete, reverse direction' ' + ( + cd modify-delete && + + git reset --hard && + git checkout E^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive D^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + master:file B:file && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :1:file :3:file && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# SORRY FOR THE SUPER LONG DESCRIPTION, BUT THIS NEXT ONE IS HAIRY +# +# criss-cross + d/f conflict via add/add: +# Commit A: Neither file 'a' nor directory 'a/' exists. +# Commit B: Introduce 'a' +# Commit C: Introduce 'a/file' +# Commit D1: Merge B & C, keeping 'a' and deleting 'a/' +# Commit E1: Merge B & C, deleting 'a' but keeping 'a/file' +# +# B D1 or D2 +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E1 or E2 or E3 +# +# I'll describe D2, E2, & E3 (which are alternatives for D1 & E1) more below... +# +# Merging D1 & E1 requires we first create a virtual merge base X from +# merging A & B in memory. There are several possibilities for the merge-base: +# 1: Keep both 'a' and 'a/file' (assuming crazy filesystem allowing a tree +# with a directory and file at same path): results in merge of D1 & E1 +# being clean with both files deleted. Bad (no conflict detected). +# 2: Keep 'a' but not 'a/file': Merging D1 & E1 is clean and matches E1. Bad. +# 3: Keep 'a/file' but not 'a': Merging D1 & E1 is clean and matches D1. Bad. +# 4: Keep neither file: Merging D1 & E1 reports the D/F add/add conflict. +# +# So 4 sounds good for this case, but if we were to merge D1 & E3, where E3 +# is defined as: +# Commit E3: Merge B & C, keeping modified a, and deleting a/ +# then we'd get an add/add conflict for 'a', which seems suboptimal. A little +# creativity leads us to an alternate choice: +# 5: Keep 'a' as 'a~$UNIQUE' and a/file; results: +# Merge D1 & E1: rename/delete conflict for 'a'; a/file silently deleted +# Merge D1 & E3 is clean, as expected. +# +# So choice 5 at least provides some kind of conflict for the original case, +# and can merge cleanly as expected with D1 and E3. It also made things just +# slightly funny for merging D1 and e$, where E4 is defined as: +# 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~$UNIQUE +# gets renamed to 'a' in D1 and to 'a2' in E4. But that's better than having +# two files (both 'a' and 'a2') sitting around without the user being notified +# that we could detect they were related and need to be merged. Also, choice +# 5 makes the handling of 'a/file' seem suboptimal. What if we were to merge +# D2 and E4, where D2 is: +# Commit D2: Merge B & C, renaming 'a'->'a2', keeping 'a/file' +# This would result in a clean merge with 'a2' having three-way merged +# contents (good), and deleting 'a/' (bad) -- it doesn't detect the +# conflict in how the different sides treated a/file differently. +# Continuing down the creative route: +# 6: Keep 'a' as 'a~$UNIQUE1' and keep 'a/' as 'a~$UNIQUE2/'; results: +# Merge D1 & E1: rename/delete conflict for 'a' and each path under 'a/'. +# Merge D1 & E3: clean, as expected. +# Merge D1 & E4: rename/rename(1to2) conflict on 'a' vs 'a2'. +# Merge D2 & E4: clean for 'a2', rename/delete for a/file +# +# Choice 6 could cause rename detection to take longer (providing more targets +# that need to be searched). Also, the conflict message for each path under +# 'a/' might be annoying unless we can detect it at the directory level, print +# it once, and then suppress it for individual filepaths underneath. +# +# +# As of time of writing, git uses choice 5. Directory rename detection and +# rename detection performance improvements might make choice 6 a desirable +# improvement. But we can at least document where we fall short for now... +# +# +# Historically, this testcase also used: +# Commit E2: Merge B & C, deleting 'a' but keeping slightly modified 'a/file' +# The merge of D1 & E2 is very similar to D1 & E1 -- it has similar issues for +# path 'a', but should always result in a modify/delete conflict for path +# 'a/file'. These tests ran the two merges +# D1 & E1 +# D1 & E2 +# in both directions, to check for directional issues with D/F conflict +# handling. Later we added +# D1 & E3 +# D1 & E4 +# D2 & E4 +# for good measure, though we only ran those one way because we had pretty +# good confidence in merge-recursive's directional handling of D/F issues. +# +# Just to summarize all the intermediate merge commits: +# Commit D1: Merge B & C, keeping a and deleting a/ +# Commit D2: Merge B & C, renaming a->a2, keeping a/file +# Commit E1: Merge B & C, deleting a but keeping a/file +# Commit E2: Merge B & C, deleting a but keeping slightly modified a/file +# Commit E3: Merge B & C, keeping modified a, and deleting a/ +# Commit E4: Merge B & C, modifying 'a' and renaming to 'a2', and deleting 'a/' +# + +test_expect_success 'setup differently handled merges of directory/file conflict' ' + test_create_repo directory-file && + ( + cd directory-file && + + >ignore-me && + git add ignore-me && + test_tick && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git branch B && + git checkout -b C && + mkdir a && + test_write_lines a b c d e f g >a/file && + git add a/file && + test_tick && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout B && + test_write_lines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >a && + git add a && + test_tick && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout B^0 && + git merge -s ours -m D1 C^0 && + git tag D1 && + + git checkout B^0 && + test_must_fail git merge C^0 && + git clean -fd && + git rm -rf a/ && + git rm a && + git cat-file -p B:a >a2 && + git add a2 && + git commit -m D2 && + git tag D2 && + + git checkout C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E1 B^0 && + git tag E1 && + + git checkout C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E2 B^0 && + test_write_lines a b c d e f g h >a/file && + git add a/file && + git commit --amend -C HEAD && + git tag E2 && + + git checkout C^0 && + test_must_fail git merge B^0 && + git clean -fd && + git rm -rf a/ && + test_write_lines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >a && + git add a && + git commit -m E3 && + git tag E3 && + + git checkout C^0 && + test_must_fail git merge B^0 && + git clean -fd && + git rm -rf a/ && + git rm a && + test_write_lines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >a2 && + git add a2 && + git commit -m E4 && + git tag E4 + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge of D1 & E1 fails but has appropriate contents' ' + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file reset --hard" && + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file clean -fdqx" && + ( + cd directory-file && + + git checkout D1^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E1^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:ignore-me B:a && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:ignore-me :2:a && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge of E1 & D1 fails but has appropriate contents' ' + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file reset --hard" && + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file clean -fdqx" && + ( + cd directory-file && + + git checkout E1^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive D1^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:ignore-me B:a && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:ignore-me :3:a && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge of D1 & E2 fails but has appropriate contents' ' + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file reset --hard" && + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file clean -fdqx" && + ( + cd directory-file && + + git checkout D1^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E2^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + B:a E2:a/file C:a/file A:ignore-me && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :2:a :3:a/file :1:a/file :0:ignore-me && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_path_is_file a~HEAD + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge of E2 & D1 fails but has appropriate contents' ' + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file reset --hard" && + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file clean -fdqx" && + ( + cd directory-file && + + git checkout E2^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive D1^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + B:a E2:a/file C:a/file A:ignore-me && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :3:a :2:a/file :1:a/file :0:ignore-me && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_path_is_file a~D1^0 + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge of D1 & E3 succeeds' ' + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file reset --hard" && + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file clean -fdqx" && + ( + cd directory-file && + + git checkout D1^0 && + + git merge -s recursive E3^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:ignore-me E3:a && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:ignore-me :0:a && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'merge of D1 & E4 notifies user a and a2 are related' ' + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file reset --hard" && + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file clean -fdqx" && + ( + cd directory-file && + + git checkout D1^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E4^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:ignore-me B:a D1:a E4:a2 && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:ignore-me :1:a~Temporary\ merge\ branch\ 2 :2:a :3:a2 && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'merge of D2 & E4 merges a2s & reports conflict for a/file' ' + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file reset --hard" && + test_when_finished "git -C directory-file clean -fdqx" && + ( + cd directory-file && + + git checkout D2^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E4^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:ignore-me E4:a2 D2:a/file && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:ignore-me :0:a2 :2:a/file && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with rename/rename(1to2)/modify followed by +# rename/rename(2to1)/modify: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: new file: a +# Commit B: rename a->b, modifying by adding a line +# Commit C: rename a->c +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving conflict by keeping contents in newname +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving conflict similar to D but adding another line +# +# There is a conflict merging B & C, but one of filename not of file +# content. Whoever created D and E chose specific resolutions for that +# conflict resolution. Now, since: (1) there is no content conflict +# merging B & C, (2) D does not modify that merged content further, and (3) +# both D & E resolve the name conflict in the same way, the modification to +# newname in E should not cause any conflicts when it is merged with D. +# (Note that this can be accomplished by having the virtual merge base have +# the merged contents of b and c stored in a file named a, which seems like +# the most logical choice anyway.) +# +# Comment from Junio: I do not necessarily agree with the choice "a", but +# it feels sound to say "B and C do not agree what the final pathname +# should be, but we know this content was derived from the common A:a so we +# use one path whose name is arbitrary in the virtual merge base X between +# D and E" and then further let the rename detection to notice that that +# arbitrary path gets renamed between X-D to "newname" and X-E also to +# "newname" to resolve it as both sides renaming it to the same new +# name. It is akin to what we do at the content level, i.e. "B and C do not +# agree what the final contents should be, so we leave the conflict marker +# but that may cancel out at the final merge stage". + +test_expect_success 'setup rename/rename(1to2)/modify followed by what looks like rename/rename(2to1)/modify' ' + test_create_repo rename-squared-squared && + ( + cd rename-squared-squared && + + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n" >a && + git add a && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git mv a b && + echo 7 >>b && + git add -u && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + git mv a c && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours C^0 && + git mv b newname && + git commit -m "Merge commit C^0 into HEAD" && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours B^0 && + git mv c newname && + printf "7\n8\n" >>newname && + git add -u && + git commit -m "Merge commit B^0 into HEAD" && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'handle rename/rename(1to2)/modify followed by what looks like rename/rename(2to1)/modify' ' + ( + cd rename-squared-squared && + + git checkout D^0 && + + git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + test $(git rev-parse HEAD:newname) = $(git rev-parse E:newname) + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with rename/rename(1to2)/add-source + resolvable modify/modify: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: new file: a +# Commit B: rename a->b +# Commit C: rename a->c, add different a +# Commit D: merge B&C, keeping b&c and (new) a modified at beginning +# Commit E: merge B&C, keeping b&c and (new) a modified at end +# +# Merging commits D & E should result in no conflict; doing so correctly +# requires getting the virtual merge base (from merging B&C) right, handling +# renaming carefully (both in the virtual merge base and later), and getting +# content merge handled. + +test_expect_success 'setup criss-cross + rename/rename/add-source + modify/modify' ' + test_create_repo rename-rename-add-source && + ( + cd rename-rename-add-source && + + printf "lots\nof\nwords\nand\ncontent\n" >a && + git add a && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git mv a b && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + git mv a c && + printf "2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n" >a && + git add a && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout B^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours C^0 && + git checkout C -- a c && + mv a old_a && + echo 1 >a && + cat old_a >>a && + rm old_a && + git add -u && + git commit -m "Merge commit C^0 into HEAD" && + git tag D && + + git checkout C^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours B^0 && + git checkout B -- b && + echo 8 >>a && + git add -u && + git commit -m "Merge commit B^0 into HEAD" && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'detect rename/rename/add-source for virtual merge-base' ' + ( + cd rename-rename-add-source && + + git checkout D^0 && + + git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n" >correct && + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:a A:a \ + correct && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:b :0:c && + git hash-object >>actual \ + a && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with rename/rename(1to2)/add-dest + simple modify: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: new file: a +# Commit B: rename a->b, add c +# Commit C: rename a->c +# Commit D: merge B&C, keeping A:a and B:c +# Commit E: merge B&C, keeping A:a and slightly modified c from B +# +# Merging commits D & E should result in no conflict. The virtual merge +# base of B & C needs to not delete B:c for that to work, though... + +test_expect_success 'setup criss-cross+rename/rename/add-dest + simple modify' ' + test_create_repo rename-rename-add-dest && + ( + cd rename-rename-add-dest && + + >a && + git add a && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git mv a b && + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n" >c && + git add c && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + git mv a c && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout B^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours C^0 && + git mv b a && + git commit -m "D is like B but renames b back to a" && + git tag D && + + git checkout B^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours C^0 && + git mv b a && + echo 8 >>c && + git add c && + git commit -m "E like D but has mod in c" && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'virtual merge base handles rename/rename(1to2)/add-dest' ' + ( + cd rename-rename-add-dest && + + git checkout D^0 && + + git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:a E:c && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:a :0:c && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with modify/modify on a symlink: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: simple simlink fickle->lagoon +# Commit B: redirect fickle->disneyland +# Commit C: redirect fickle->home +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving in favor of B +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving in favor of C +# +# This is an obvious modify/modify conflict for the symlink 'fickle'. Can +# git detect it? + +test_expect_success 'setup symlink modify/modify' ' + test_create_repo symlink-modify-modify && + ( + cd symlink-modify-modify && + + test_ln_s_add lagoon fickle && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git rm fickle && + test_ln_s_add disneyland fickle && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + git rm fickle && + test_ln_s_add home fickle && + git add fickle && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge -s ours -m D C^0 && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E B^0 && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'check symlink modify/modify' ' + ( + cd symlink-modify-modify && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with add/add of a symlink: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: No symlink or path exists yet +# Commit B: set up symlink: fickle->disneyland +# Commit C: set up symlink: fickle->home +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving in favor of B +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving in favor of C +# +# This is an obvious add/add conflict for the symlink 'fickle'. Can +# git detect it? + +test_expect_success 'setup symlink add/add' ' + test_create_repo symlink-add-add && + ( + cd symlink-add-add && + + touch ignoreme && + git add ignoreme && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + test_ln_s_add disneyland fickle && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + test_ln_s_add home fickle && + git add fickle && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge -s ours -m D C^0 && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E B^0 && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'check symlink add/add' ' + ( + cd symlink-add-add && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with modify/modify on a submodule: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: simple submodule repo +# Commit B: update repo +# Commit C: update repo differently +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving in favor of B +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving in favor of C +# +# This is an obvious modify/modify conflict for the submodule 'repo'. Can +# git detect it? + +test_expect_success 'setup submodule modify/modify' ' + test_create_repo submodule-modify-modify && + ( + cd submodule-modify-modify && + + test_create_repo submod && + ( + cd submod && + touch file-A && + git add file-A && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + touch file-B && + git add file-B && + git commit -m B && + git tag B && + + git checkout -b C A && + touch file-C && + git add file-C && + git commit -m C && + git tag C + ) && + + git -C submod reset --hard A && + git add submod && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git -C submod reset --hard B && + git add submod && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + git -C submod reset --hard C && + git add submod && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge -s ours -m D C^0 && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E B^0 && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'check submodule modify/modify' ' + ( + cd submodule-modify-modify && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with add/add on a submodule: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: nothing of note +# Commit B: introduce submodule repo +# Commit C: introduce submodule repo at different commit +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving in favor of B +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving in favor of C +# +# This is an obvious add/add conflict for the submodule 'repo'. Can +# git detect it? + +test_expect_success 'setup submodule add/add' ' + test_create_repo submodule-add-add && + ( + cd submodule-add-add && + + test_create_repo submod && + ( + cd submod && + touch file-A && + git add file-A && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + touch file-B && + git add file-B && + git commit -m B && + git tag B && + + git checkout -b C A && + touch file-C && + git add file-C && + git commit -m C && + git tag C + ) && + + touch irrelevant-file && + git add irrelevant-file && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git -C submod reset --hard B && + git add submod && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + git -C submod reset --hard C && + git add submod && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge -s ours -m D C^0 && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E B^0 && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'check submodule add/add' ' + ( + cd submodule-add-add && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with conflicting entry types: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: nothing of note +# Commit B: introduce submodule 'path' +# Commit C: introduce symlink 'path' +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving in favor of B +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving in favor of C +# +# This is an obvious add/add conflict for 'path'. Can git detect it? + +test_expect_success 'setup conflicting entry types (submodule vs symlink)' ' + test_create_repo submodule-symlink-add-add && + ( + cd submodule-symlink-add-add && + + test_create_repo path && + ( + cd path && + touch file-B && + git add file-B && + git commit -m B && + git tag B + ) && + + touch irrelevant-file && + git add irrelevant-file && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git -C path reset --hard B && + git add path && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + rm -rf path/ && + test_ln_s_add irrelevant-file path && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge -s ours -m D C^0 && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E B^0 && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'check conflicting entry types (submodule vs symlink)' ' + ( + cd submodule-symlink-add-add && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out + ) +' + +# +# criss-cross with regular files that have conflicting modes: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: nothing of note +# Commit B: introduce file source_me.bash, not executable +# Commit C: introduce file source_me.bash, executable +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving in favor of B +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving in favor of C +# +# This is an obvious add/add mode conflict. Can git detect it? + +test_expect_success 'setup conflicting modes for regular file' ' + test_create_repo regular-file-mode-conflict && + ( + cd regular-file-mode-conflict && + + touch irrelevant-file && + git add irrelevant-file && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + echo "command_to_run" >source_me.bash && + git add source_me.bash && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + echo "command_to_run" >source_me.bash && + git add source_me.bash && + test_chmod +x source_me.bash && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge -s ours -m D C^0 && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge -s ours -m E B^0 && + git tag E + ) +' + +test_expect_failure 'check conflicting modes for regular file' ' + ( + cd regular-file-mode-conflict && + + git checkout D^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out + ) +' + +# Setup: +# L1---L2 +# / \ / \ +# master X ? +# \ / \ / +# R1---R2 +# +# Where: +# master has two files, named 'b' and 'a' +# branches L1 and R1 both modify each of the two files in conflicting ways +# +# L2 is a merge of R1 into L1; more on it later. +# R2 is a merge of L1 into R1; more on it later. +# +# X is an auto-generated merge-base used when merging L2 and R2. +# since X is a merge of L1 and R1, it has conflicting versions of each file +# +# More about L2 and R2: +# - both resolve the conflicts in 'b' and 'a' differently +# - L2 renames 'b' to 'm' +# - R2 renames 'a' to 'm' +# +# In the end, in file 'm' we have four different conflicting files (from +# two versions of 'b' and two of 'a'). In addition, if +# merge.conflictstyle is diff3, then the base version also has +# conflict markers of its own, leading to a total of three levels of +# conflict markers. This is a pretty weird corner case, but we just want +# to ensure that we handle it as well as practical. + +test_expect_success 'setup nested conflicts' ' + test_create_repo nested_conflicts && + ( + cd nested_conflicts && + + # Create some related files now + for i in $(test_seq 1 10) + do + echo Random base content line $i + done >initial && + + cp initial b_L1 && + cp initial b_R1 && + cp initial b_L2 && + cp initial b_R2 && + cp initial a_L1 && + cp initial a_R1 && + cp initial a_L2 && + cp initial a_R2 && + + test_write_lines b b_L1 >>b_L1 && + test_write_lines b b_R1 >>b_R1 && + test_write_lines b b_L2 >>b_L2 && + test_write_lines b b_R2 >>b_R2 && + test_write_lines a a_L1 >>a_L1 && + test_write_lines a a_R1 >>a_R1 && + test_write_lines a a_L2 >>a_L2 && + test_write_lines a a_R2 >>a_R2 && + + # Setup original commit (or merge-base), consisting of + # files named "b" and "a" + cp initial b && + cp initial a && + echo b >>b && + echo a >>a && + git add b a && + test_tick && git commit -m initial && + + git branch L && + git branch R && + + # Handle the left side + git checkout L && + mv -f b_L1 b && + mv -f a_L1 a && + git add b a && + test_tick && git commit -m "version L1 of files" && + git tag L1 && + + # Handle the right side + git checkout R && + mv -f b_R1 b && + mv -f a_R1 a && + git add b a && + test_tick && git commit -m "verson R1 of files" && + git tag R1 && + + # Create first merge on left side + git checkout L && + test_must_fail git merge R1 && + mv -f b_L2 b && + mv -f a_L2 a && + git add b a && + git mv b m && + test_tick && git commit -m "left merge, rename b->m" && + git tag L2 && + + # Create first merge on right side + git checkout R && + test_must_fail git merge L1 && + mv -f b_R2 b && + mv -f a_R2 a && + git add b a && + git mv a m && + test_tick && git commit -m "right merge, rename a->m" && + git tag R2 + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'check nested conflicts' ' + ( + cd nested_conflicts && + + git clean -f && + MASTER=$(git rev-parse --short master) && + git checkout L2^0 && + + # Merge must fail; there is a conflict + test_must_fail git -c merge.conflictstyle=diff3 merge -s recursive R2^0 && + + # Make sure the index has the right number of entries + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + # Ensure we have the correct number of untracked files + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + # Create a and b from virtual merge base X + git cat-file -p master:a >base && + git cat-file -p L1:a >ours && + git cat-file -p R1:a >theirs && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 1" \ + -L "$MASTER" \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 2" \ + ours \ + base \ + theirs && + sed -e "s/^\([<|=>]\)/\1\1/" ours >vmb_a && + + git cat-file -p master:b >base && + git cat-file -p L1:b >ours && + git cat-file -p R1:b >theirs && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 1" \ + -L "$MASTER" \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 2" \ + ours \ + base \ + theirs && + sed -e "s/^\([<|=>]\)/\1\1/" ours >vmb_b && + + # Compare :2:m to expected values + git cat-file -p L2:m >ours && + git cat-file -p R2:b >theirs && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "HEAD:m" \ + -L "merged common ancestors:b" \ + -L "R2^0:b" \ + ours \ + vmb_b \ + theirs && + sed -e "s/^\([<|=>]\)/\1\1/" ours >m_stage_2 && + git cat-file -p :2:m >actual && + test_cmp m_stage_2 actual && + + # Compare :3:m to expected values + git cat-file -p L2:a >ours && + git cat-file -p R2:m >theirs && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "HEAD:a" \ + -L "merged common ancestors:a" \ + -L "R2^0:m" \ + ours \ + vmb_a \ + theirs && + sed -e "s/^\([<|=>]\)/\1\1/" ours >m_stage_3 && + git cat-file -p :3:m >actual && + test_cmp m_stage_3 actual && + + # Compare m to expected contents + >empty && + cp m_stage_2 expected_final_m && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "merged common ancestors" \ + -L "R2^0" \ + expected_final_m \ + empty \ + m_stage_3 && + test_cmp expected_final_m m + ) +' + +# Setup: +# L1---L2---L3 +# / \ / \ / \ +# master X1 X2 ? +# \ / \ / \ / +# R1---R2---R3 +# +# Where: +# master has one file named 'content' +# branches L1 and R1 both modify each of the two files in conflicting ways +# +# L<n> (n>1) is a merge of R<n-1> into L<n-1> +# R<n> (n>1) is a merge of L<n-1> into R<n-1> +# L<n> and R<n> resolve the conflicts differently. +# +# X<n> is an auto-generated merge-base used when merging L<n+1> and R<n+1>. +# By construction, X1 has conflict markers due to conflicting versions. +# X2, due to using merge.conflictstyle=3, has nested conflict markers. +# +# So, merging R3 into L3 using merge.conflictstyle=3 should show the +# nested conflict markers from X2 in the base version -- that means we +# have three levels of conflict markers. Can we distinguish all three? + +test_expect_success 'setup virtual merge base with nested conflicts' ' + test_create_repo virtual_merge_base_has_nested_conflicts && + ( + cd virtual_merge_base_has_nested_conflicts && + + # Create some related files now + for i in $(test_seq 1 10) + do + echo Random base content line $i + done >content && + + # Setup original commit + git add content && + test_tick && git commit -m initial && + + git branch L && + git branch R && + + # Create L1 + git checkout L && + echo left >>content && + git add content && + test_tick && git commit -m "version L1 of content" && + git tag L1 && + + # Create R1 + git checkout R && + echo right >>content && + git add content && + test_tick && git commit -m "verson R1 of content" && + git tag R1 && + + # Create L2 + git checkout L && + test_must_fail git -c merge.conflictstyle=diff3 merge R1 && + git checkout L1 content && + test_tick && git commit -m "version L2 of content" && + git tag L2 && + + # Create R2 + git checkout R && + test_must_fail git -c merge.conflictstyle=diff3 merge L1 && + git checkout R1 content && + test_tick && git commit -m "version R2 of content" && + git tag R2 && + + # Create L3 + git checkout L && + test_must_fail git -c merge.conflictstyle=diff3 merge R2 && + git checkout L1 content && + test_tick && git commit -m "version L3 of content" && + git tag L3 && + + # Create R3 + git checkout R && + test_must_fail git -c merge.conflictstyle=diff3 merge L2 && + git checkout R1 content && + test_tick && git commit -m "version R3 of content" && + git tag R3 + ) +' + +test_expect_success 'check virtual merge base with nested conflicts' ' + ( + cd virtual_merge_base_has_nested_conflicts && + + MASTER=$(git rev-parse --short master) && + git checkout L3^0 && + + # Merge must fail; there is a conflict + test_must_fail git -c merge.conflictstyle=diff3 merge -s recursive R3^0 && + + # Make sure the index has the right number of entries + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + # Ensure we have the correct number of untracked files + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + # Compare :[23]:content to expected values + git rev-parse L1:content R1:content >expect && + git rev-parse :2:content :3:content >actual && + test_cmp expect actual && + + # Imitate X1 merge base, except without long enough conflict + # markers because a subsequent sed will modify them. Put + # result into vmb. + git cat-file -p master:content >base && + git cat-file -p L:content >left && + git cat-file -p R:content >right && + cp left merged-once && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 1" \ + -L "$MASTER" \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 2" \ + merged-once \ + base \ + right && + sed -e "s/^\([<|=>]\)/\1\1\1/" merged-once >vmb && + + # Imitate X2 merge base, overwriting vmb. Note that we + # extend both sets of conflict markers to make them longer + # with the sed command. + cp left merged-twice && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 1" \ + -L "merged common ancestors" \ + -L "Temporary merge branch 2" \ + merged-twice \ + vmb \ + right && + sed -e "s/^\([<|=>]\)/\1\1\1/" merged-twice >vmb && + + # Compare :1:content to expected value + git cat-file -p :1:content >actual && + test_cmp vmb actual && + + # Determine expected content in final outer merge, compare to + # what the merge generated. + cp -f left expect && + test_must_fail git merge-file --diff3 \ + -L "HEAD" -L "merged common ancestors" -L "R3^0" \ + expect vmb right && + test_cmp expect content + ) +' + +test_done |