diff options
Diffstat (limited to 't/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh')
| -rwxr-xr-x | t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 4517 |
1 files changed, 4517 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000000..c966147d5d --- /dev/null +++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh @@ -0,0 +1,4517 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +test_description="recursive merge with directory renames" +# includes checking of many corner cases, with a similar methodology to: +# t6042: corner cases with renames but not criss-cross merges +# t6036: corner cases with both renames and criss-cross merges +# +# The setup for all of them, pictorially, is: +# +# A +# o +# / \ +# O o ? +# \ / +# o +# B +# +# To help make it easier to follow the flow of tests, they have been +# divided into sections and each test will start with a quick explanation +# of what commits O, A, and B contain. +# +# Notation: +# z/{b,c} means files z/b and z/c both exist +# x/d_1 means file x/d exists with content d1. (Purpose of the +# underscore notation is to differentiate different +# files that might be renamed into each other's paths.) + +. ./test-lib.sh + + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 1: Basic cases we should be able to handle +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 1a, Basic directory rename. +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/{b,c} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e/f} +# Expected: y/{b,c,d,e/f} + +test_expect_success '1a-setup: Simple directory rename detection' ' + test_create_repo 1a && + ( + cd 1a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo d >z/d && + mkdir z/e && + echo f >z/e/f && + git add z/d z/e/f && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '1a-check: Simple directory rename detection' ' + ( + cd 1a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:y/e/f && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d B:z/e/f && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/d >actual && + git rev-parse B:z/d >expect && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:z/d && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:z/e/f && + test_path_is_missing z/d && + test_path_is_missing z/e/f + ) +' + +# Testcase 1b, Merge a directory with another +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, y/d +# Commit A: z/{b,c,e}, y/d +# Commit B: y/{b,c,d} +# Expected: y/{b,c,d,e} + +test_expect_success '1b-setup: Merge a directory with another' ' + test_create_repo 1b && + ( + cd 1b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir y && + echo d >y/d && + git add z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + echo e >z/e && + git add z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z/b y && + git mv z/c y && + rmdir z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '1b-check: Merge a directory with another' ' + ( + cd 1b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:y/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:y/d A:z/e && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:z/e + ) +' + +# Testcase 1c, Transitive renaming +# (Related to testcases 3a and 6d -- when should a transitive rename apply?) +# (Related to testcases 9c and 9d -- can transitivity repeat?) +# (Related to testcase 12b -- joint-transitivity?) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d +# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/d +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d} +# Expected: y/{b,c,d} (because x/d -> z/d -> y/d) + +test_expect_success '1c-setup: Transitive renaming' ' + test_create_repo 1c && + ( + cd 1c && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '1c-check: Transitive renaming' ' + ( + cd 1c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:x/d && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:z/d && + test_path_is_missing z/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 1d, Directory renames (merging two directories into one new one) +# cause a rename/rename(2to1) conflict +# (Related to testcases 1c and 7b) +# Commit O. z/{b,c}, y/{d,e} +# Commit A. x/{b,c}, y/{d,e,m,wham_1} +# Commit B. z/{b,c,n,wham_2}, x/{d,e} +# Expected: x/{b,c,d,e,m,n}, CONFLICT:(y/wham_1 & z/wham_2 -> x/wham) +# Note: y/m & z/n should definitely move into x. By the same token, both +# y/wham_1 & z/wham_2 should too...giving us a conflict. + +test_expect_success '1d-setup: Directory renames cause a rename/rename(2to1) conflict' ' + test_create_repo 1d && + ( + cd 1d && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir y && + echo d >y/d && + echo e >y/e && + git add z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z x && + echo m >y/m && + echo wham1 >y/wham && + git add y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv y x && + echo n >z/n && + echo wham2 >z/wham && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '1d-check: Directory renames cause a rename/rename(2to1) conflict' ' + ( + cd 1d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 8 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:x/b :0:x/c :0:x/d :0:x/e :0:x/m :0:x/n && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:y/d O:y/e A:y/m B:z/n && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse :0:x/wham && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :2:x/wham :3:x/wham && + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:y/wham B:z/wham && + test_cmp expect actual && + + # Test that the two-way merge in x/wham is as expected + git cat-file -p :2:x/wham >expect && + git cat-file -p :3:x/wham >other && + >empty && + test_must_fail git merge-file \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "" \ + -L "B^0" \ + expect empty other && + test_cmp expect x/wham + ) +' + +# Testcase 1e, Renamed directory, with all filenames being renamed too +# (Related to testcases 9f & 9g) +# Commit O: z/{oldb,oldc} +# Commit A: y/{newb,newc} +# Commit B: z/{oldb,oldc,d} +# Expected: y/{newb,newc,d} + +test_expect_success '1e-setup: Renamed directory, with all files being renamed too' ' + test_create_repo 1e && + ( + cd 1e && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/oldb && + echo c >z/oldc && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir y && + git mv z/oldb y/newb && + git mv z/oldc y/newc && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo d >z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '1e-check: Renamed directory, with all files being renamed too' ' + ( + cd 1e && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/newb HEAD:y/newc HEAD:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/oldb O:z/oldc B:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:z/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 1f, Split a directory into two other directories +# (Related to testcases 3a, all of section 2, and all of section 4) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d,e,f} +# Commit A: z/{b,c,d,e,f,g} +# Commit B: y/{b,c}, x/{d,e,f} +# Expected: y/{b,c}, x/{d,e,f,g} + +test_expect_success '1f-setup: Split a directory into two other directories' ' + test_create_repo 1f && + ( + cd 1f && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d >z/d && + echo e >z/e && + echo f >z/f && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + echo g >z/g && + git add z/g && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir y && + mkdir x && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + git mv z/d x/ && + git mv z/e x/ && + git mv z/f x/ && + rmdir z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '1f-check: Split a directory into two other directories' ' + ( + cd 1f && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:x/d HEAD:x/e HEAD:x/f HEAD:x/g && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:z/d O:z/e O:z/f A:z/g && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_path_is_missing z/g && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:z/g + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by testcases in section 1: +# +# We should still detect the directory rename even if it wasn't just +# the directory renamed, but the files within it. (see 1b) +# +# If renames split a directory into two or more others, the directory +# with the most renames, "wins" (see 1c). However, see the testcases +# in section 2, plus testcases 3a and 4a. +########################################################################### + + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 2: Split into multiple directories, with equal number of paths +# +# Explore the splitting-a-directory rules a bit; what happens in the +# edge cases? +# +# Note that there is a closely related case of a directory not being +# split on either side of history, but being renamed differently on +# each side. See testcase 8e for that. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 2a, Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/b, w/c +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d} +# Expected: y/b, w/c, z/d, with warning about z/ -> (y/ vs. w/) conflict +test_expect_success '2a-setup: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' ' + test_create_repo 2a && + ( + cd 2a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir y && + mkdir w && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c w/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo d >z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '2a-check: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' ' + ( + cd 2a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT.*directory rename split" out && + + 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 && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:w/c :0:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 2b, Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/b, w/c +# Commit B: z/{b,c}, x/d +# Expected: y/b, w/c, x/d; No warning about z/ -> (y/ vs. w/) conflict +test_expect_success '2b-setup: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' ' + test_create_repo 2b && + ( + cd 2b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir y && + mkdir w && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c w/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir x && + echo d >x/d && + git add x/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '2b-check: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' ' + ( + cd 2b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + + 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 && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:w/c :0:x/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_i18ngrep ! "CONFLICT.*directory rename split" out + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by section 2: +# +# None; the rule was already covered in section 1. These testcases are +# here just to make sure the conflict resolution and necessary warning +# messages are handled correctly. +########################################################################### + + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 3: Path in question is the source path for some rename already +# +# Combining cases from Section 1 and trying to handle them could lead to +# directory renaming detection being over-applied. So, this section +# provides some good testcases to check that the implementation doesn't go +# too far. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 3a, Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side +# (Related to testcases 1c, 1f, and 9h) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d} +# Commit A: z/{b,c,d} (no change) +# Commit B: y/{b,c}, x/d +# Expected: y/{b,c}, x/d +test_expect_success '3a-setup: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side' ' + test_create_repo 3a && + ( + cd 3a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + test_tick && + git commit --allow-empty -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir y && + mkdir x && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + git mv z/d x/ && + rmdir z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '3a-check: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side' ' + ( + cd 3a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:x/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 3b, Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side +# (Related to testcases 5c and 7c, also kind of 1e and 1f) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d} +# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/d +# Commit B: z/{b,c}, w/d +# Expected: y/{b,c}, CONFLICT:(z/d -> x/d vs. w/d) +# NOTE: We're particularly checking that since z/d is already involved as +# a source in a file rename on the same side of history, that we don't +# get it involved in directory rename detection. If it were, we might +# end up with CONFLICT:(z/d -> y/d vs. x/d vs. w/d), i.e. a +# rename/rename/rename(1to3) conflict, which is just weird. +test_expect_success '3b-setup: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on current side' ' + test_create_repo 3b && + ( + cd 3b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir y && + mkdir x && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + git mv z/d x/ && + rmdir z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir w && + git mv z/d w/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '3b-check: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on current side' ' + ( + cd 3b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/d.*x/d.*w/d out && + test_i18ngrep ! CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*y/d out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :1:z/d :2:x/d :3:w/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:z/d O:z/d O:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_path_is_missing z/d && + git hash-object >actual \ + x/d w/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/d O:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by section 3: +# +# Avoid directory-rename-detection for a path, if that path is the source +# of a rename on either side of a merge. +########################################################################### + + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 4: Partially renamed directory; still exists on both sides of merge +# +# What if we were to attempt to do directory rename detection when someone +# "mostly" moved a directory but still left some files around, or, +# equivalently, fully renamed a directory in one commmit and then recreated +# that directory in a later commit adding some new files and then tried to +# merge? +# +# It's hard to divine user intent in these cases, because you can make an +# argument that, depending on the intermediate history of the side being +# merged, that some users will want files in that directory to +# automatically be detected and renamed, while users with a different +# intermediate history wouldn't want that rename to happen. +# +# I think that it is best to simply not have directory rename detection +# apply to such cases. My reasoning for this is four-fold: (1) it's +# easiest for users in general to figure out what happened if we don't +# apply directory rename detection in any such case, (2) it's an easy rule +# to explain ["We don't do directory rename detection if the directory +# still exists on both sides of the merge"], (3) we can get some hairy +# edge/corner cases that would be really confusing and possibly not even +# representable in the index if we were to even try, and [related to 3] (4) +# attempting to resolve this issue of divining user intent by examining +# intermediate history goes against the spirit of three-way merges and is a +# path towards crazy corner cases that are far more complex than what we're +# already dealing with. +# +# Note that the wording of the rule ("We don't do directory rename +# detection if the directory still exists on both sides of the merge.") +# also excludes "renaming" of a directory into a subdirectory of itself +# (e.g. /some/dir/* -> /some/dir/subdir/*). It may be possible to carve +# out an exception for "renaming"-beneath-itself cases without opening +# weird edge/corner cases for other partial directory renames, but for now +# we are keeping the rule simple. +# +# This section contains a test for a partially-renamed-directory case. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 4a, Directory split, with original directory still present +# (Related to testcase 1f) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d,e} +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, z/e +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e,f} +# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, z/{e,f} +# NOTE: Even though most files from z moved to y, we don't want f to follow. + +test_expect_success '4a-setup: Directory split, with original directory still present' ' + test_create_repo 4a && + ( + cd 4a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d >z/d && + echo e >z/e && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir y && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + git mv z/d y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo f >z/f && + git add z/f && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '4a-check: Directory split, with original directory still present' ' + ( + cd 4a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:z/e HEAD:z/f && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:z/d O:z/e B:z/f && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by section 4: +# +# Directory-rename-detection should be turned off for any directories (as +# a source for renames) that exist on both sides of the merge. (The "as +# a source for renames" clarification is due to cases like 1c where +# the target directory exists on both sides and we do want the rename +# detection.) But, sadly, see testcase 8b. +########################################################################### + + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 5: Files/directories in the way of subset of to-be-renamed paths +# +# Implicitly renaming files due to a detected directory rename could run +# into problems if there are files or directories in the way of the paths +# we want to rename. Explore such cases in this section. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 5a, Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, y/d +# Commit A: z/{b,c,e_1,f}, y/{d,e_2} +# Commit B: y/{b,c,d} +# Expected: z/e_1, y/{b,c,d,e_2,f} + CONFLICT warning +# NOTE: While directory rename detection is active here causing z/f to +# become y/f, we did not apply this for z/e_1 because that would +# give us an add/add conflict for y/e_1 vs y/e_2. This problem with +# this add/add, is that both versions of y/e are from the same side +# of history, giving us no way to represent this conflict in the +# index. + +test_expect_success '5a-setup: Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target' ' + test_create_repo 5a && + ( + cd 5a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir y && + echo d >y/d && + git add z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + echo e1 >z/e && + echo f >z/f && + echo e2 >y/e && + git add z/e z/f y/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + rmdir z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '5a-check: Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target' ' + ( + cd 5a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT.*implicit dir rename" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/d :0:y/e :0:z/e :0:y/f && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:y/d A:y/e A:z/e A:z/f && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 5b, Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict +# (Related to testcase 8d; these may appear slightly inconsistent to users; +# Also related to testcases 7d and 7e) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d_1} +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d_2} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1,e}, y/d_3 +# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(add/add: y/d_2 vs. y/d_3) +# NOTE: If z/d_1 in commit B were to be involved in dir rename detection, as +# we normaly would since z/ is being renamed to y/, then this would be +# a rename/delete (z/d_1 -> y/d_1 vs. deleted) AND an add/add/add +# conflict of y/d_1 vs. y/d_2 vs. y/d_3. Add/add/add is not +# representable in the index, so the existence of y/d_3 needs to +# cause us to bail on directory rename detection for that path, falling +# back to git behavior without the directory rename detection. + +test_expect_success '5b-setup: Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict' ' + test_create_repo 5b && + ( + cd 5b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d1 >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git rm z/d && + git mv z y && + echo d2 >y/d && + git add y/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir y && + echo d3 >y/d && + echo e >z/e && + git add y/d z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '5b-check: Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict' ' + ( + cd 5b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (add/add).* y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + git ls-files -u >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 :2:y/d :3:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e A:y/d B:y/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d && + test_path_is_file y/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 5c, Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add +# (Directory rename detection would result in transitive rename vs. +# rename/rename(1to2) and turn it into a rename/rename(1to3). Further, +# rename paths conflict with separate adds on the other side) +# (Related to testcases 3b and 7c) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d_1 +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d_2}, w/d_1 +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1,e}, w/d_3, y/d_4 +# Expected: A mess, but only a rename/rename(1to2)/add/add mess. Use the +# presence of y/d_4 in B to avoid doing transitive rename of +# x/d_1 -> z/d_1 -> y/d_1, so that the only paths we have at +# y/d are y/d_2 and y/d_4. We still do the move from z/e to y/e, +# though, because it doesn't have anything in the way. + +test_expect_success '5c-setup: Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add' ' + test_create_repo 5c && + ( + cd 5c && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d1 >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + echo d2 >y/d && + git add y/d && + git mv x w && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/ && + mkdir w && + mkdir y && + echo d3 >w/d && + echo d4 >y/d && + echo e >z/e && + git add w/ y/ z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '5c-check: Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add' ' + ( + cd 5c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*x/d.*w/d.*z/d" out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (add/add).* y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 9 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :2:w/d :3:w/d :1:x/d :2:y/d :3:y/d :3:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/d B:w/d O:x/d A:y/d B:y/d O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object >actual \ + z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_path_is_missing x/d && + test_path_is_file y/d && + grep -q "<<<<" y/d # conflict markers should be present + ) +' + +# Testcase 5d, Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d_1} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_2,f}, y/d/e +# Expected: y/{b,c,d/e,f}, z/d_2, CONFLICT(file/directory), y/d_1~HEAD +# Note: The fact that y/d/ exists in B makes us bail on directory rename +# detection for z/d_2, but that doesn't prevent us from applying the +# directory rename detection for z/f -> y/f. + +test_expect_success '5d-setup: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename' ' + test_create_repo 5d && + ( + cd 5d && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + echo d1 >y/d && + git add y/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir -p y/d && + echo e >y/d/e && + echo d2 >z/d && + echo f >z/f && + git add y/d/e z/d z/f && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '5d-check: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename' ' + ( + cd 5d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (file/directory).*y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:z/d :0:y/f :2:y/d :0:y/d/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d B:z/f A:y/d B:y/d/e && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/d~HEAD >actual && + git rev-parse A:y/d >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by section 5: +# +# If a subset of to-be-renamed files have a file or directory in the way, +# "turn off" the directory rename for those specific sub-paths, falling +# back to old handling. But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b. +########################################################################### + + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 6: Same side of the merge was the one that did the rename +# +# It may sound obvious that you only want to apply implicit directory +# renames to directories if the _other_ side of history did the renaming. +# If you did make an implementation that didn't explicitly enforce this +# rule, the majority of cases that would fall under this section would +# also be solved by following the rules from the above sections. But +# there are still a few that stick out, so this section covers them just +# to make sure we also get them right. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 6a, Tricky rename/delete +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d} +# Commit A: z/b +# Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d +# Expected: y/b, CONFLICT(rename/delete, z/c -> y/c vs. NULL) +# Note: We're just checking here that the rename of z/b and z/c to put +# them under y/ doesn't accidentally catch z/d and make it look like +# it is also involved in a rename/delete conflict. + +test_expect_success '6a-setup: Tricky rename/delete' ' + test_create_repo 6a && + ( + cd 6a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git rm z/c && + git rm z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir y && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '6a-check: Tricky rename/delete' ' + ( + cd 6a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*z/c.*y/c" out && + + 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 >actual \ + :0:y/b :3:y/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 6b, Same rename done on both sides +# (Related to testcases 6c and 8e) +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/{b,c} +# Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d +# Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d +# Note: If we did directory rename detection here, we'd move z/d into y/, +# but B did that rename and still decided to put the file into z/, +# so we probably shouldn't apply directory rename detection for it. + +test_expect_success '6b-setup: Same rename done on both sides' ' + test_create_repo 6b && + ( + cd 6b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z y && + mkdir z && + echo d >z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '6b-check: Same rename done on both sides' ' + ( + cd 6b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^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 && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 6c, Rename only done on same side +# (Related to testcases 6b and 8e) +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: z/{b,c} (no change) +# Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d +# Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d +# NOTE: Seems obvious, but just checking that the implementation doesn't +# "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}. + +test_expect_success '6c-setup: Rename only done on same side' ' + test_create_repo 6c && + ( + cd 6c && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + test_tick && + git commit --allow-empty -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z y && + mkdir z && + echo d >z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '6c-check: Rename only done on same side' ' + ( + cd 6c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^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 && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 6d, We don't always want transitive renaming +# (Related to testcase 1c) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d +# Commit A: z/{b,c}, x/d (no change) +# Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d +# Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d +# NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation +# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}. + +test_expect_success '6d-setup: We do not always want transitive renaming' ' + test_create_repo 6d && + ( + cd 6d && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + test_tick && + git commit --allow-empty -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z y && + git mv x z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '6d-check: We do not always want transitive renaming' ' + ( + cd 6d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^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 && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 6e, Add/add from one-side +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: z/{b,c} (no change) +# Commit B: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2 +# Expected: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2 +# NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation +# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c} + +# add/add conflict on y/d_1 vs y/d_2. + +test_expect_success '6e-setup: Add/add from one side' ' + test_create_repo 6e && + ( + cd 6e && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + test_tick && + git commit --allow-empty -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z y && + echo d1 > y/d && + mkdir z && + echo d2 > z/d && + git add y/d z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '6e-check: Add/add from one side' ' + ( + cd 6e && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:y/d B:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by section 6: +# +# Only apply implicit directory renames to directories if the other +# side of history is the one doing the renaming. +########################################################################### + + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 7: More involved Edge/Corner cases +# +# The ruleset we have generated in the above sections seems to provide +# well-defined merges. But can we find edge/corner cases that either (a) +# are harder for users to understand, or (b) have a resolution that is +# non-intuitive or suboptimal? +# +# The testcases in this section dive into cases that I've tried to craft in +# a way to find some that might be surprising to users or difficult for +# them to understand (the next section will look at non-intuitive or +# suboptimal merge results). Some of the testcases are similar to ones +# from past sections, but have been simplified to try to highlight error +# messages using a "modified" path (due to the directory rename). Are +# users okay with these? +# +# In my opinion, testcases that are difficult to understand from this +# section is due to difficulty in the testcase rather than the directory +# renaming (similar to how t6042 and t6036 have difficult resolutions due +# to the problem setup itself being complex). And I don't think the +# error messages are a problem. +# +# On the other hand, the testcases in section 8 worry me slightly more... +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 7a, rename-dir vs. rename-dir (NOT split evenly) PLUS add-other-file +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/{b,c} +# Commit B: w/b, x/c, z/d +# Expected: y/d, CONFLICT(rename/rename for both z/b and z/c) +# NOTE: There's a rename of z/ here, y/ has more renames, so z/d -> y/d. + +test_expect_success '7a-setup: rename-dir vs. rename-dir (NOT split evenly) PLUS add-other-file' ' + test_create_repo 7a && + ( + cd 7a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir w && + mkdir x && + git mv z/b w/ && + git mv z/c x/ && + echo d > z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '7a-check: rename-dir vs. rename-dir (NOT split evenly) PLUS add-other-file' ' + ( + cd 7a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*z/b.*y/b.*w/b" out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*z/c.*y/c.*x/c" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 7 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :1:z/b :2:y/b :3:w/b :1:z/c :2:y/c :3:x/c :0:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/b O:z/b O:z/c O:z/c O:z/c B:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object >actual \ + y/b w/b y/c x/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/b O:z/c O:z/c && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 7b, rename/rename(2to1), but only due to transitive rename +# (Related to testcase 1d) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d_1, w/d_2 +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d_2}, x/d_1 +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1}, w/d_2 +# Expected: y/{b,c}, CONFLICT(rename/rename(2to1): x/d_1, w/d_2 -> y_d) + +test_expect_success '7b-setup: rename/rename(2to1), but only due to transitive rename' ' + test_create_repo 7b && + ( + cd 7b && + + mkdir z && + mkdir x && + mkdir w && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d1 > x/d && + echo d2 > w/d && + git add z x w && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + git mv w/d y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/ && + rmdir x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '7b-check: rename/rename(2to1), but only due to transitive rename' ' + ( + cd 7b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -u >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 :2:y/d :3:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:w/d O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + # Test that the two-way merge in y/d is as expected + git cat-file -p :2:y/d >expect && + git cat-file -p :3:y/d >other && + >empty && + test_must_fail git merge-file \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "" \ + -L "B^0" \ + expect empty other && + test_cmp expect y/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 7c, rename/rename(1to...2or3); transitive rename may add complexity +# (Related to testcases 3b and 5c) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d +# Commit A: y/{b,c}, w/d +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d} +# Expected: y/{b,c}, CONFLICT(x/d -> w/d vs. y/d) +# NOTE: z/ was renamed to y/ so we do want to report +# neither CONFLICT(x/d -> w/d vs. z/d) +# nor CONFLiCT x/d -> w/d vs. y/d vs. z/d) + +test_expect_success '7c-setup: rename/rename(1to...2or3); transitive rename may add complexity' ' + test_create_repo 7c && + ( + cd 7c && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + git mv x w && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/ && + rmdir x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '7c-check: rename/rename(1to...2or3); transitive rename may add complexity' ' + ( + cd 7c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*x/d.*w/d.*y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :1:x/d :2:w/d :3:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:x/d O:x/d O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 7d, transitive rename involved in rename/delete; how is it reported? +# (Related somewhat to testcases 5b and 8d) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d +# Commit A: y/{b,c} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d} +# Expected: y/{b,c}, CONFLICT(delete x/d vs rename to y/d) +# NOTE: z->y so NOT CONFLICT(delete x/d vs rename to z/d) + +test_expect_success '7d-setup: transitive rename involved in rename/delete; how is it reported?' ' + test_create_repo 7d && + ( + cd 7d && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + git rm -rf x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/ && + rmdir x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '7d-check: transitive rename involved in rename/delete; how is it reported?' ' + ( + cd 7d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*x/d.*y/d" out && + + 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 >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :3:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 7e, transitive rename in rename/delete AND dirs in the way +# (Very similar to 'both rename source and destination involved in D/F conflict' from t6022-merge-rename.sh) +# (Also related to testcases 9c and 9d) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d_1 +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d/g}, x/d/f +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1} +# Expected: rename/delete(x/d_1->y/d_1 vs. None) + D/F conflict on y/d +# y/{b,c,d/g}, y/d_1~B^0, x/d/f + +# NOTE: The main path of interest here is d_1 and where it ends up, but +# this is actually a case that has two potential directory renames +# involved and D/F conflict(s), so it makes sense to walk through +# each step. +# +# Commit A renames z/ -> y/. Thus everything that B adds to z/ +# should be instead moved to y/. This gives us the D/F conflict on +# y/d because x/d_1 -> z/d_1 -> y/d_1 conflicts with y/d/g. +# +# Further, commit B renames x/ -> z/, thus everything A adds to x/ +# should instead be moved to z/...BUT we removed z/ and renamed it +# to y/, so maybe everything should move not from x/ to z/, but +# from x/ to z/ to y/. Doing so might make sense from the logic so +# far, but note that commit A had both an x/ and a y/; it did the +# renaming of z/ to y/ and created x/d/f and it clearly made these +# things separate, so it doesn't make much sense to push these +# together. Doing so is what I'd call a doubly transitive rename; +# see testcases 9c and 9d for further discussion of this issue and +# how it's resolved. + +test_expect_success '7e-setup: transitive rename in rename/delete AND dirs in the way' ' + test_create_repo 7e && + ( + cd 7e && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d1 >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + git rm x/d && + mkdir -p x/d && + mkdir -p y/d && + echo f >x/d/f && + echo g >y/d/g && + git add x/d/f y/d/g && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/ && + rmdir x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '7e-check: transitive rename in rename/delete AND dirs in the way' ' + ( + cd 7e && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*x/d.*y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:x/d/f :0:y/d/g :0:y/b :0:y/c :3:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:x/d/f A:y/d/g O:z/b O:z/c O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/d~B^0 >actual && + git rev-parse O:x/d >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 8: Suboptimal merges +# +# As alluded to in the last section, the ruleset we have built up for +# detecting directory renames unfortunately has some special cases where it +# results in slightly suboptimal or non-intuitive behavior. This section +# explores these cases. +# +# To be fair, we already had non-intuitive or suboptimal behavior for most +# of these cases in git before introducing implicit directory rename +# detection, but it'd be nice if there was a modified ruleset out there +# that handled these cases a bit better. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 8a, Dual-directory rename, one into the others' way +# Commit O. x/{a,b}, y/{c,d} +# Commit A. x/{a,b,e}, y/{c,d,f} +# Commit B. y/{a,b}, z/{c,d} +# +# Possible Resolutions: +# w/o dir-rename detection: y/{a,b,f}, z/{c,d}, x/e +# Currently expected: y/{a,b,e,f}, z/{c,d} +# Optimal: y/{a,b,e}, z/{c,d,f} +# +# Note: Both x and y got renamed and it'd be nice to detect both, and we do +# better with directory rename detection than git did without, but the +# simple rule from section 5 prevents me from handling this as optimally as +# we potentially could. + +test_expect_success '8a-setup: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way' ' + test_create_repo 8a && + ( + cd 8a && + + mkdir x && + mkdir y && + echo a >x/a && + echo b >x/b && + echo c >y/c && + echo d >y/d && + git add x y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + echo e >x/e && + echo f >y/f && + git add x/e y/f && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv y z && + git mv x y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '8a-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way' ' + ( + cd 8a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/a HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/e HEAD:y/f HEAD:z/c HEAD:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/a O:x/b A:x/e A:y/f O:y/c O:y/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 8b, Dual-directory rename, one into the others' way, with conflicting filenames +# Commit O. x/{a_1,b_1}, y/{a_2,b_2} +# Commit A. x/{a_1,b_1,e_1}, y/{a_2,b_2,e_2} +# Commit B. y/{a_1,b_1}, z/{a_2,b_2} +# +# w/o dir-rename detection: y/{a_1,b_1,e_2}, z/{a_2,b_2}, x/e_1 +# Currently expected: <same> +# Scary: y/{a_1,b_1}, z/{a_2,b_2}, CONFLICT(add/add, e_1 vs. e_2) +# Optimal: y/{a_1,b_1,e_1}, z/{a_2,b_2,e_2} +# +# Note: Very similar to 8a, except instead of 'e' and 'f' in directories x and +# y, both are named 'e'. Without directory rename detection, neither file +# moves directories. Implement directory rename detection suboptimally, and +# you get an add/add conflict, but both files were added in commit A, so this +# is an add/add conflict where one side of history added both files -- +# something we can't represent in the index. Obviously, we'd prefer the last +# resolution, but our previous rules are too coarse to allow it. Using both +# the rules from section 4 and section 5 save us from the Scary resolution, +# making us fall back to pre-directory-rename-detection behavior for both +# e_1 and e_2. + +test_expect_success '8b-setup: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, with conflicting filenames' ' + test_create_repo 8b && + ( + cd 8b && + + mkdir x && + mkdir y && + echo a1 >x/a && + echo b1 >x/b && + echo a2 >y/a && + echo b2 >y/b && + git add x y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + echo e1 >x/e && + echo e2 >y/e && + git add x/e y/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv y z && + git mv x y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, with conflicting filenames' ' + ( + cd 8b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/a HEAD:y/b HEAD:z/a HEAD:z/b HEAD:x/e HEAD:y/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/a O:x/b O:y/a O:y/b A:x/e A:y/e && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# 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(modify/delete: on z/d) +# +# 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: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?' ' + test_create_repo 8c && + ( + cd 8c && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + test_seq 1 10 >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git rm z/d && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo 11 >z/d && + test_chmod +x z/d && + echo e >z/e && + git add z/d z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '8c-check: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete' ' + ( + cd 8c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (modify/delete).* z/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + git ls-files -u >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 :1:z/d :3:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + 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 :2:z/d && + git ls-files -s z/d | grep ^100755 && + test_path_is_file z/d && + test_path_is_missing y/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 8d, rename/delete...or not? +# (Related to testcase 5b; these may appear slightly inconsistent to users; +# Also related to testcases 7d and 7e) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d} +# Commit A: y/{b,c} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e} +# Expected: y/{b,c,e} +# +# Note: It would also be somewhat reasonable to resolve this as +# y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted) +# +# 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. +# delete) are both coming from commit A, which is illogical. Conflicts +# during merging are supposed to be about opposite sides doing things +# differently. + +test_expect_success '8d-setup: rename/delete...or not?' ' + test_create_repo 8d && + ( + cd 8d && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + test_seq 1 10 >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git rm z/d && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo e >z/e && + git add z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '8d-check: rename/delete...or not?' ' + ( + cd 8d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 8e, Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/{b,c} +# 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: ?? +# +# 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. +# +# 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. + +test_expect_success '8e-setup: Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory' ' + test_create_repo 8e && + ( + cd 8e && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z w && + mkdir z && + echo d >z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '8e-check: Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory' ' + ( + cd 8e && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/c.*y/c.*w/c out && + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/b.*y/b.*w/b out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 7 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :1:z/b :2:y/b :3:w/b :1:z/c :2:y/c :3:w/c :0:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/b O:z/b O:z/c O:z/c O:z/c B:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object >actual \ + y/b w/b y/c w/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/b O:z/c O:z/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_path_is_missing z/b && + test_path_is_missing z/c + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 9: Other testcases +# +# This section consists of miscellaneous testcases I thought of during +# the implementation which round out the testing. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 9a, Inner renamed directory within outer renamed directory +# (Related to testcase 1f) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d/{e,f,g}} +# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/w/{e,f,g} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d/{e,f,g,h},i} +# Expected: y/{b,c,i}, x/w/{e,f,g,h} +# NOTE: The only reason this one is interesting is because when a directory +# is split into multiple other directories, we determine by the weight +# of which one had the most paths going to it. A naive implementation +# of that could take the new file in commit B at z/i to x/w/i or x/i. + +test_expect_success '9a-setup: Inner renamed directory within outer renamed directory' ' + test_create_repo 9a && + ( + cd 9a && + + mkdir -p z/d && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo e >z/d/e && + echo f >z/d/f && + echo g >z/d/g && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir x && + git mv z/d x/w && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo h >z/d/h && + echo i >z/i && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '9a-check: Inner renamed directory within outer renamed directory' ' + ( + cd 9a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 7 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/i && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/i && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:x/w/e HEAD:x/w/f HEAD:x/w/g HEAD:x/w/h && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/d/e O:z/d/f O:z/d/g B:z/d/h && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 9b, Transitive rename with content merge +# (Related to testcase 1c) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d_1 +# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/d_2 +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_3} +# Expected: y/{b,c,d_merged} + +test_expect_success '9b-setup: Transitive rename with content merge' ' + test_create_repo 9b && + ( + cd 9b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + test_seq 1 10 >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + test_seq 1 11 >x/d && + git add x/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + test_seq 0 10 >x/d && + git mv x/d z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '9b-check: Transitive rename with content merge' ' + ( + cd 9b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + test_seq 0 11 >expected && + test_cmp expected y/d && + git add expected && + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c :0:expected && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:x/d && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:z/d && + test_path_is_missing z/d && + + test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/d) != $(git rev-parse O:x/d) && + test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/d) != $(git rev-parse A:x/d) && + test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/d) != $(git rev-parse B:z/d) + ) +' + +# Testcase 9c, Doubly transitive rename? +# (Related to testcase 1c, 7e, and 9d) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/{d,e}, w/f +# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/{d,e,f,g} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e}, w/f +# Expected: y/{b,c,d,e}, x/{f,g} +# +# NOTE: x/f and x/g may be slightly confusing here. The rename from w/f to +# x/f is clear. Let's look beyond that. Here's the logic: +# Commit B renamed x/ -> z/ +# Commit A renamed z/ -> y/ +# So, we could possibly further rename x/f to z/f to y/f, a doubly +# transient rename. However, where does it end? We can chain these +# indefinitely (see testcase 9d). What if there is a D/F conflict +# at z/f/ or y/f/? Or just another file conflict at one of those +# paths? In the case of an N-long chain of transient renamings, +# where do we "abort" the rename at? Can the user make sense of +# the resulting conflict and resolve it? +# +# To avoid this confusion I use the simple rule that if the other side +# of history did a directory rename to a path that your side renamed +# away, then ignore that particular rename from the other side of +# history for any implicit directory renames. + +test_expect_success '9c-setup: Doubly transitive rename?' ' + test_create_repo 9c && + ( + cd 9c && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d >x/d && + echo e >x/e && + mkdir w && + echo f >w/f && + git add z x w && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + git mv w/f x/ && + echo g >x/g && + git add x/g && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/d && + git mv x/e z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '9c-check: Doubly transitive rename?' ' + ( + cd 9c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying x -> z rename to x/f" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:y/e HEAD:x/f HEAD:x/g && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:x/d O:x/e O:w/f A:x/g && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 9d, N-fold transitive rename? +# (Related to testcase 9c...and 1c and 7e) +# Commit O: z/a, y/b, x/c, w/d, v/e, u/f +# Commit A: y/{a,b}, w/{c,d}, u/{e,f} +# Commit B: z/{a,t}, x/{b,c}, v/{d,e}, u/f +# Expected: <see NOTE first> +# +# NOTE: z/ -> y/ (in commit A) +# y/ -> x/ (in commit B) +# x/ -> w/ (in commit A) +# w/ -> v/ (in commit B) +# v/ -> u/ (in commit A) +# So, if we add a file to z, say z/t, where should it end up? In u? +# What if there's another file or directory named 't' in one of the +# intervening directories and/or in u itself? Also, shouldn't the +# same logic that places 't' in u/ also move ALL other files to u/? +# What if there are file or directory conflicts in any of them? If +# we attempted to do N-way (N-fold? N-ary? N-uple?) transitive renames +# like this, would the user have any hope of understanding any +# conflicts or how their working tree ended up? I think not, so I'm +# ruling out N-ary transitive renames for N>1. +# +# Therefore our expected result is: +# z/t, y/a, x/b, w/c, u/d, u/e, u/f +# The reason that v/d DOES get transitively renamed to u/d is that u/ isn't +# renamed somewhere. A slightly sub-optimal result, but it uses fairly +# simple rules that are consistent with what we need for all the other +# testcases and simplifies things for the user. + +test_expect_success '9d-setup: N-way transitive rename?' ' + test_create_repo 9d && + ( + cd 9d && + + mkdir z y x w v u && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >y/b && + echo c >x/c && + echo d >w/d && + echo e >v/e && + echo f >u/f && + git add z y x w v u && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z/a y/ && + git mv x/c w/ && + git mv v/e u/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo t >z/t && + git mv y/b x/ && + git mv w/d v/ && + git add z/t && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '9d-check: N-way transitive rename?' ' + ( + cd 9d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying z -> y rename to z/t" out && + test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying y -> x rename to y/a" out && + test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying x -> w rename to x/b" out && + test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying w -> v rename to w/c" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 7 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:z/t \ + HEAD:y/a HEAD:x/b HEAD:w/c \ + HEAD:u/d HEAD:u/e HEAD:u/f && + git rev-parse >expect \ + B:z/t \ + O:z/a O:y/b O:x/c \ + O:w/d O:v/e A:u/f && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 9e, N-to-1 whammo +# (Related to testcase 9c...and 1c and 7e) +# Commit O: dir1/{a,b}, dir2/{d,e}, dir3/{g,h}, dirN/{j,k} +# Commit A: dir1/{a,b,c,yo}, dir2/{d,e,f,yo}, dir3/{g,h,i,yo}, dirN/{j,k,l,yo} +# Commit B: combined/{a,b,d,e,g,h,j,k} +# Expected: combined/{a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l}, CONFLICT(Nto1) warnings, +# dir1/yo, dir2/yo, dir3/yo, dirN/yo + +test_expect_success '9e-setup: N-to-1 whammo' ' + test_create_repo 9e && + ( + cd 9e && + + mkdir dir1 dir2 dir3 dirN && + echo a >dir1/a && + echo b >dir1/b && + echo d >dir2/d && + echo e >dir2/e && + echo g >dir3/g && + echo h >dir3/h && + echo j >dirN/j && + echo k >dirN/k && + git add dir* && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + echo c >dir1/c && + echo yo >dir1/yo && + echo f >dir2/f && + echo yo >dir2/yo && + echo i >dir3/i && + echo yo >dir3/yo && + echo l >dirN/l && + echo yo >dirN/yo && + git add dir* && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv dir1 combined && + git mv dir2/* combined/ && + git mv dir3/* combined/ && + git mv dirN/* combined/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success C_LOCALE_OUTPUT '9e-check: N-to-1 whammo' ' + ( + cd 9e && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + grep "CONFLICT (implicit dir rename): Cannot map more than one path to combined/yo" out >error_line && + grep -q dir1/yo error_line && + grep -q dir2/yo error_line && + grep -q dir3/yo error_line && + grep -q dirN/yo error_line && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 16 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:combined/a :0:combined/b :0:combined/c \ + :0:combined/d :0:combined/e :0:combined/f \ + :0:combined/g :0:combined/h :0:combined/i \ + :0:combined/j :0:combined/k :0:combined/l && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:dir1/a O:dir1/b A:dir1/c \ + O:dir2/d O:dir2/e A:dir2/f \ + O:dir3/g O:dir3/h A:dir3/i \ + O:dirN/j O:dirN/k A:dirN/l && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:dir1/yo :0:dir2/yo :0:dir3/yo :0:dirN/yo && + git rev-parse >expect \ + A:dir1/yo A:dir2/yo A:dir3/yo A:dirN/yo && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 9f, Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs +# (Related to testcases 1e & 9g) +# Commit O: goal/{a,b}/$more_files +# Commit A: priority/{a,b}/$more_files +# Commit B: goal/{a,b}/$more_files, goal/c +# Expected: priority/{a,b}/$more_files, priority/c + +test_expect_success '9f-setup: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs' ' + test_create_repo 9f && + ( + cd 9f && + + mkdir -p goal/a && + mkdir -p goal/b && + echo foo >goal/a/foo && + echo bar >goal/b/bar && + echo baz >goal/b/baz && + git add goal && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv goal/ priority && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo c >goal/c && + git add goal/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '9f-check: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs' ' + ( + cd 9f && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:priority/a/foo \ + HEAD:priority/b/bar \ + HEAD:priority/b/baz \ + HEAD:priority/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:goal/a/foo \ + O:goal/b/bar \ + O:goal/b/baz \ + B:goal/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:goal/c + ) +' + +# Testcase 9g, Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs, immediate subdirs renamed +# (Related to testcases 1e & 9f) +# Commit O: goal/{a,b}/$more_files +# Commit A: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files +# Commit B: goal/{a,b}/$more_files, goal/c +# Expected: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files, priority/c + +test_expect_success '9g-setup: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs, immediate subdirs renamed' ' + test_create_repo 9g && + ( + cd 9g && + + mkdir -p goal/a && + mkdir -p goal/b && + echo foo >goal/a/foo && + echo bar >goal/b/bar && + echo baz >goal/b/baz && + git add goal && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir priority && + git mv goal/a/ priority/alpha && + git mv goal/b/ priority/beta && + rmdir goal/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo c >goal/c && + git add goal/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_failure '9g-check: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs, immediate subdirs renamed' ' + ( + cd 9g && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:priority/alpha/foo \ + HEAD:priority/beta/bar \ + HEAD:priority/beta/baz \ + HEAD:priority/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:goal/a/foo \ + O:goal/b/bar \ + O:goal/b/baz \ + B:goal/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:goal/c + ) +' + +# Testcase 9h, Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side +# (Extremely closely related to testcase 3a) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d_1} +# Commit A: z/{b,c,d_2} +# Commit B: y/{b,c}, x/d_1 +# Expected: y/{b,c}, x/d_2 +# NOTE: If we applied the z/ -> y/ rename to z/d, then we'd end up with +# a rename/rename(1to2) conflict (z/d -> y/d vs. x/d) +test_expect_success '9h-setup: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' ' + test_create_repo 9h && + ( + cd 9h && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nd\n" >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + test_tick && + echo more >>z/d && + git add z/d && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir y && + mkdir x && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + git mv z/d x/ && + rmdir z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' ' + ( + cd 9h && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:x/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c A:z/d && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by section 9: +# +# If the other side of history did a directory rename to a path that your +# side renamed away, then ignore that particular rename from the other +# side of history for any implicit directory renames. +########################################################################### + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 10: Handling untracked files +# +# unpack_trees(), upon which the recursive merge algorithm is based, aborts +# the operation if untracked or dirty files would be deleted or overwritten +# by the merge. Unfortunately, unpack_trees() does not understand renames, +# and if it doesn't abort, then it muddies up the working directory before +# we even get to the point of detecting renames, so we need some special +# handling, at least in the case of directory renames. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 10a, Overwrite untracked: normal rename/delete +# Commit O: z/{b,c_1} +# Commit A: z/b + untracked z/c + untracked z/d +# Commit B: z/{b,d_1} +# Expected: Aborted Merge + +# ERROR_MSG(untracked working tree files would be overwritten by merge) + +test_expect_success '10a-setup: Overwrite untracked with normal rename/delete' ' + test_create_repo 10a && + ( + cd 10a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git rm z/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z/c z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '10a-check: Overwrite untracked with normal rename/delete' ' + ( + cd 10a && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo very >z/c && + echo important >z/d && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "The following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by merge" err && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + + echo very >expect && + test_cmp expect z/c && + + echo important >expect && + test_cmp expect z/d && + + git rev-parse HEAD:z/b >actual && + git rev-parse O:z/b >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 10b, Overwrite untracked: dir rename + delete +# Commit O: z/{b,c_1} +# Commit A: y/b + untracked y/{c,d,e} +# Commit B: z/{b,d_1,e} +# Expected: Failed Merge; y/b + untracked y/c + untracked y/d on disk + +# z/c_1 -> z/d_1 rename recorded at stage 3 for y/d + +# ERROR_MSG(refusing to lose untracked file at 'y/d') + +test_expect_success '10b-setup: Overwrite untracked with dir rename + delete' ' + test_create_repo 10b && + ( + cd 10b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git rm z/c && + git mv z/ y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z/c z/d && + echo e >z/e && + git add z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '10b-check: Overwrite untracked with dir rename + delete' ' + ( + cd 10b && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo very >y/c && + echo important >y/d && + echo contents >y/e && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*Version B\^0 of y/d left in tree at y/d~B\^0" out && + test_i18ngrep "Error: Refusing to lose untracked file at y/e; writing to y/e~B\^0 instead" out && + + 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 = 5 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :3:y/d :3:y/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e && + test_cmp expect actual && + + echo very >expect && + test_cmp expect y/c && + + echo important >expect && + test_cmp expect y/d && + + echo contents >expect && + test_cmp expect y/e + ) +' + +# Testcase 10c, Overwrite untracked: dir rename/rename(1to2) +# Commit O: z/{a,b}, x/{c,d} +# Commit A: y/{a,b}, w/c, x/d + different untracked y/c +# Commit B: z/{a,b,c}, x/d +# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b} + x/d + untracked y/c + +# CONFLICT(rename/rename) x/c -> w/c vs y/c + +# y/c~B^0 + +# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose untracked file at y/c) + +test_expect_success '10c-setup: Overwrite untracked with dir rename/rename(1to2)' ' + test_create_repo 10c && + ( + cd 10c && + + mkdir z x && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >x/c && + echo d >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + mkdir w && + git mv x/c w/c && + git mv z/ y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/c z/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '10c-check: Overwrite untracked with dir rename/rename(1to2)' ' + ( + cd 10c && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo important >y/c && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose untracked file at y/c; adding as y/c~B\^0 instead" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/a :0:y/b :0:x/d :1:x/c :2:w/c :3:y/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/a O:z/b O:x/d O:x/c O:x/c O:x/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/c~B^0 >actual && + git rev-parse O:x/c >expect && + test_cmp expect actual && + + echo important >expect && + test_cmp expect y/c + ) +' + +test_expect_success '10c-check: Overwrite untracked with dir rename/rename(1to2), other direction' ' + ( + cd 10c && + + git reset --hard && + git clean -fdqx && + + git checkout B^0 && + mkdir y && + echo important >y/c && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive A^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose untracked file at y/c; adding as y/c~HEAD instead" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/a :0:y/b :0:x/d :1:x/c :3:w/c :2:y/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/a O:z/b O:x/d O:x/c O:x/c O:x/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/c~HEAD >actual && + git rev-parse O:x/c >expect && + test_cmp expect actual && + + echo important >expect && + test_cmp expect y/c + ) +' + +# Testcase 10d, Delete untracked w/ dir rename/rename(2to1) +# Commit O: z/{a,b,c_1}, x/{d,e,f_2} +# Commit A: y/{a,b}, x/{d,e,f_2,wham_1} + untracked y/wham +# Commit B: z/{a,b,c_1,wham_2}, y/{d,e} +# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b,d,e} + untracked y/{wham,wham~merged}+ +# CONFLICT(rename/rename) z/c_1 vs x/f_2 -> y/wham +# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose untracked file at y/wham) + +test_expect_success '10d-setup: Delete untracked with dir rename/rename(2to1)' ' + test_create_repo 10d && + ( + cd 10d && + + mkdir z x && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d >x/d && + echo e >x/e && + echo f >x/f && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z/c x/wham && + git mv z/ y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/f z/wham && + git mv x/ y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '10d-check: Delete untracked with dir rename/rename(2to1)' ' + ( + cd 10d && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo important >y/wham && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose untracked file at y/wham" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/a :0:y/b :0:y/d :0:y/e :2:y/wham :3:y/wham && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/a O:z/b O:x/d O:x/e O:z/c O:x/f && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/wham && + + echo important >expect && + test_cmp expect y/wham && + + # Test that the two-way merge in y/wham~merged is as expected + git cat-file -p :2:y/wham >expect && + git cat-file -p :3:y/wham >other && + >empty && + test_must_fail git merge-file \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "" \ + -L "B^0" \ + expect empty other && + test_cmp expect y/wham~merged + ) +' + +# Testcase 10e, Does git complain about untracked file that's not in the way? +# Commit O: z/{a,b} +# Commit A: y/{a,b} + untracked z/c +# Commit B: z/{a,b,c} +# Expected: y/{a,b,c} + untracked z/c + +test_expect_success '10e-setup: Does git complain about untracked file that is not really in the way?' ' + test_create_repo 10e && + ( + cd 10e && + + mkdir z && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >z/b && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z/ y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo c >z/c && + git add z/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_failure '10e-check: Does git complain about untracked file that is not really in the way?' ' + ( + cd 10e && + + git checkout A^0 && + mkdir z && + echo random >z/c && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep ! "following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by merge" err && + + 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 = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/a :0:y/b :0:y/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/a O:z/b B:z/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + + echo random >expect && + test_cmp expect z/c + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 11: Handling dirty (not up-to-date) files +# +# unpack_trees(), upon which the recursive merge algorithm is based, aborts +# the operation if untracked or dirty files would be deleted or overwritten +# by the merge. Unfortunately, unpack_trees() does not understand renames, +# and if it doesn't abort, then it muddies up the working directory before +# we even get to the point of detecting renames, so we need some special +# handling. This was true even of normal renames, but there are additional +# codepaths that need special handling with directory renames. Add +# testcases for both renamed-by-directory-rename-detection and standard +# rename cases. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 11a, Avoid losing dirty contents with simple rename +# Commit O: z/{a,b_v1}, +# Commit A: z/{a,c_v1}, and z/c_v1 has uncommitted mods +# Commit B: z/{a,b_v2} +# Expected: ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c) + +# z/a, staged version of z/c has sha1sum matching B:z/b_v2, +# z/c~HEAD with contents of B:z/b_v2, +# z/c with uncommitted mods on top of A:z/c_v1 + +test_expect_success '11a-setup: Avoid losing dirty contents with simple rename' ' + test_create_repo 11a && + ( + cd 11a && + + mkdir z && + echo a >z/a && + test_seq 1 10 >z/b && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z/b z/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo 11 >>z/b && + git add z/b && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '11a-check: Avoid losing dirty contents with simple rename' ' + ( + cd 11a && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo stuff >>z/c && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c" out && + + test_seq 1 10 >expected && + echo stuff >>expected && + test_cmp expected z/c && + + 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 = 4 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:z/a :2:z/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/a B:z/b && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object z/c~HEAD >actual && + git rev-parse B:z/b >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 11b, Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename +# Commit O: z/a, x/{b,c_v1} +# Commit A: z/{a,c_v1}, x/b, and z/c_v1 has uncommitted mods +# Commit B: y/a, x/{b,c_v2} +# Expected: y/{a,c_v2}, x/b, z/c_v1 with uncommitted mods untracked, +# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c) + + +test_expect_success '11b-setup: Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename' ' + test_create_repo 11b && + ( + cd 11b && + + mkdir z x && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >x/b && + test_seq 1 10 >x/c && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv x/c z/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z y && + echo 11 >>x/c && + git add x/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '11b-check: Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename' ' + ( + cd 11b && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo stuff >>z/c && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c" out && + + grep -q stuff z/c && + test_seq 1 10 >expected && + echo stuff >>expected && + test_cmp expected z/c && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -m >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:x/b :0:y/a :0:y/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/b O:z/a B:x/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/c >actual && + git rev-parse B:x/c >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 11c, Avoid losing not-up-to-date with rename + D/F conflict +# Commit O: y/a, x/{b,c_v1} +# Commit A: y/{a,c_v1}, x/b, and y/c_v1 has uncommitted mods +# Commit B: y/{a,c/d}, x/{b,c_v2} +# Expected: Abort_msg("following files would be overwritten by merge") + +# y/c left untouched (still has uncommitted mods) + +test_expect_success '11c-setup: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' ' + test_create_repo 11c && + ( + cd 11c && + + mkdir y x && + echo a >y/a && + echo b >x/b && + test_seq 1 10 >x/c && + git add y x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv x/c y/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir y/c && + echo d >y/c/d && + echo 11 >>x/c && + git add x/c y/c/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '11c-check: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' ' + ( + cd 11c && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo stuff >>y/c && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "following files would be overwritten by merge" err && + + grep -q stuff y/c && + test_seq 1 10 >expected && + echo stuff >>expected && + test_cmp expected y/c && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -m >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 3 out + ) +' + +# Testcase 11d, Avoid losing not-up-to-date with rename + D/F conflict +# Commit O: z/a, x/{b,c_v1} +# Commit A: z/{a,c_v1}, x/b, and z/c_v1 has uncommitted mods +# Commit B: y/{a,c/d}, x/{b,c_v2} +# Expected: D/F: y/c_v2 vs y/c/d) + +# Warning_Msg("Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c) + +# y/{a,c~HEAD,c/d}, x/b, now-untracked z/c_v1 with uncommitted mods + +test_expect_success '11d-setup: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' ' + test_create_repo 11d && + ( + cd 11d && + + mkdir z x && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >x/b && + test_seq 1 10 >x/c && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv x/c z/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z y && + mkdir y/c && + echo d >y/c/d && + echo 11 >>x/c && + git add x/c y/c/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '11d-check: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' ' + ( + cd 11d && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo stuff >>z/c && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c" out && + + grep -q stuff z/c && + test_seq 1 10 >expected && + echo stuff >>expected && + test_cmp expected z/c && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:x/b :0:y/a :0:y/c/d :3:y/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/b O:z/a B:y/c/d B:x/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/c~HEAD >actual && + git rev-parse B:x/c >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 11e, Avoid deleting not-up-to-date with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add +# Commit O: z/{a,b}, x/{c_1,d} +# Commit A: y/{a,b,c_2}, x/d, w/c_1, and y/c_2 has uncommitted mods +# Commit B: z/{a,b,c_1}, x/d +# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b} + x/d + +# CONFLICT(rename/rename) x/c_1 -> w/c_1 vs y/c_1 + +# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose dirty file at y/c) +# y/c~B^0 has O:x/c_1 contents +# y/c~HEAD has A:y/c_2 contents +# y/c has dirty file from before merge + +test_expect_success '11e-setup: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add' ' + test_create_repo 11e && + ( + cd 11e && + + mkdir z x && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >x/c && + echo d >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z/ y/ && + echo different >y/c && + mkdir w && + git mv x/c w/ && + git add y/c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/c z/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '11e-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add' ' + ( + cd 11e && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo mods >>y/c && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at y/c" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 7 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + echo different >expected && + echo mods >>expected && + test_cmp expected y/c && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/a :0:y/b :0:x/d :1:x/c :2:w/c :2:y/c :3:y/c && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/a O:z/b O:x/d O:x/c O:x/c A:y/c O:x/c && + test_cmp expect actual && + + # See if y/c~merged has expected contents; requires manually + # doing the expected file merge + git cat-file -p A:y/c >c1 && + git cat-file -p B:z/c >c2 && + >empty && + test_must_fail git merge-file \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "" \ + -L "B^0" \ + c1 empty c2 && + test_cmp c1 y/c~merged + ) +' + +# Testcase 11f, Avoid deleting not-up-to-date w/ dir rename/rename(2to1) +# Commit O: z/{a,b}, x/{c_1,d_2} +# Commit A: y/{a,b,wham_1}, x/d_2, except y/wham has uncommitted mods +# Commit B: z/{a,b,wham_2}, x/c_1 +# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b} + untracked y/{wham~merged} + +# y/wham with dirty changes from before merge + +# CONFLICT(rename/rename) x/c vs x/d -> y/wham +# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose dirty file at y/wham) + +test_expect_success '11f-setup: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(2to1)' ' + test_create_repo 11f && + ( + cd 11f && + + mkdir z x && + echo a >z/a && + echo b >z/b && + test_seq 1 10 >x/c && + echo d >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z/ y/ && + git mv x/c y/wham && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/wham && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '11f-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(2to1)' ' + ( + cd 11f && + + git checkout A^0 && + echo important >>y/wham && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out && + test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at y/wham" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + test_seq 1 10 >expected && + echo important >>expected && + test_cmp expected y/wham && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/wham && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/a :0:y/b :2:y/wham :3:y/wham && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/a O:z/b O:x/c O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + # Test that the two-way merge in y/wham~merged is as expected + git cat-file -p :2:y/wham >expect && + git cat-file -p :3:y/wham >other && + >empty && + test_must_fail git merge-file \ + -L "HEAD" \ + -L "" \ + -L "B^0" \ + expect empty other && + test_cmp expect y/wham~merged + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 12: Everything else +# +# Tests suggested by others. Tests added after implementation completed +# and submitted. Grab bag. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 12a, Moving one directory hierarchy into another +# (Related to testcase 9a) +# Commit O: node1/{leaf1,leaf2}, node2/{leaf3,leaf4} +# Commit A: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,node2/{leaf3,leaf4}} +# Commit B: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,leaf5}, node2/{leaf3,leaf4,leaf6} +# Expected: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,leaf5,node2/{leaf3,leaf4,leaf6}} + +test_expect_success '12a-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' ' + test_create_repo 12a && + ( + cd 12a && + + mkdir -p node1 node2 && + echo leaf1 >node1/leaf1 && + echo leaf2 >node1/leaf2 && + echo leaf3 >node2/leaf3 && + echo leaf4 >node2/leaf4 && + git add node1 node2 && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv node2/ node1/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo leaf5 >node1/leaf5 && + echo leaf6 >node2/leaf6 && + git add node1 node2 && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '12a-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' ' + ( + cd 12a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:node1/leaf1 HEAD:node1/leaf2 HEAD:node1/leaf5 \ + HEAD:node1/node2/leaf3 \ + HEAD:node1/node2/leaf4 \ + HEAD:node1/node2/leaf6 && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:node1/leaf1 O:node1/leaf2 B:node1/leaf5 \ + O:node2/leaf3 \ + O:node2/leaf4 \ + B:node2/leaf6 && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 12b, Moving two directory hierarchies into each other +# (Related to testcases 1c and 12c) +# Commit O: node1/{leaf1, leaf2}, node2/{leaf3, leaf4} +# Commit A: node1/{leaf1, leaf2, node2/{leaf3, leaf4}} +# Commit B: node2/{leaf3, leaf4, node1/{leaf1, leaf2}} +# Expected: node1/node2/node1/{leaf1, leaf2}, +# node2/node1/node2/{leaf3, leaf4} +# NOTE: Without directory renames, we would expect +# node2/node1/{leaf1, leaf2}, +# node1/node2/{leaf3, leaf4} +# with directory rename detection, we note that +# commit A renames node2/ -> node1/node2/ +# commit B renames node1/ -> node2/node1/ +# therefore, applying those directory renames to the initial result +# (making all four paths experience a transitive renaming), yields +# the expected result. +# +# You may ask, is it weird to have two directories rename each other? +# To which, I can do no more than shrug my shoulders and say that +# even simple rules give weird results when given weird inputs. + +test_expect_success '12b-setup: Moving two directory hierarchies into each other' ' + test_create_repo 12b && + ( + cd 12b && + + mkdir -p node1 node2 && + echo leaf1 >node1/leaf1 && + echo leaf2 >node1/leaf2 && + echo leaf3 >node2/leaf3 && + echo leaf4 >node2/leaf4 && + git add node1 node2 && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv node2/ node1/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv node1/ node2/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '12b-check: Moving two directory hierarchies into each other' ' + ( + cd 12b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 4 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + HEAD:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \ + HEAD:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \ + HEAD:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \ + HEAD:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:node1/leaf1 \ + O:node1/leaf2 \ + O:node2/leaf3 \ + O:node2/leaf4 && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 12c, Moving two directory hierarchies into each other w/ content merge +# (Related to testcase 12b) +# Commit O: node1/{ leaf1_1, leaf2_1}, node2/{leaf3_1, leaf4_1} +# Commit A: node1/{ leaf1_2, leaf2_2, node2/{leaf3_2, leaf4_2}} +# Commit B: node2/{node1/{leaf1_3, leaf2_3}, leaf3_3, leaf4_3} +# Expected: Content merge conflicts for each of: +# node1/node2/node1/{leaf1, leaf2}, +# node2/node1/node2/{leaf3, leaf4} +# NOTE: This is *exactly* like 12c, except that every path is modified on +# each side of the merge. + +test_expect_success '12c-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' ' + test_create_repo 12c && + ( + cd 12c && + + mkdir -p node1 node2 && + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf1\n" >node1/leaf1 && + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf2\n" >node1/leaf2 && + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf3\n" >node2/leaf3 && + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf4\n" >node2/leaf4 && + git add node1 node2 && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv node2/ node1/ && + for i in `git ls-files`; do echo side A >>$i; done && + git add -u && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv node1/ node2/ && + for i in `git ls-files`; do echo side B >>$i; done && + git add -u && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' ' + ( + cd 12c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 && + + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 12 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :1:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \ + :1:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \ + :1:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \ + :1:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 \ + :2:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \ + :2:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \ + :2:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \ + :2:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 \ + :3:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \ + :3:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \ + :3:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \ + :3:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:node1/leaf1 \ + O:node1/leaf2 \ + O:node2/leaf3 \ + O:node2/leaf4 \ + A:node1/leaf1 \ + A:node1/leaf2 \ + A:node1/node2/leaf3 \ + A:node1/node2/leaf4 \ + B:node2/node1/leaf1 \ + B:node2/node1/leaf2 \ + B:node2/leaf3 \ + B:node2/leaf4 && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 13: Checking informational and conflict messages +# +# A year after directory rename detection became the default, it was +# instead decided to report conflicts on the pathname on the basis that +# some users may expect the new files added or moved into a directory to +# be unrelated to all the other files in that directory, and thus that +# directory rename detection is unexpected. Test that the messages printed +# match our expectation. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 13a, Basic directory rename with newly added files +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/{b,c} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e/f} +# Expected: y/{b,c,d,e/f}, with notices/conflicts for both y/d and y/e/f + +test_expect_success '13a-setup: messages for newly added files' ' + test_create_repo 13a && + ( + cd 13a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo d >z/d && + mkdir z/e && + echo f >z/e/f && + git add z/d z/e/f && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13a-check(conflict): messages for newly added files' ' + ( + cd 13a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*z/e/f.added.in.B^0.*y/e/f out && + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*z/d.added.in.B^0.*y/d out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep z/ paths && + grep "y/[de]" paths && + + test_path_is_missing z/d && + test_path_is_file y/d && + test_path_is_missing z/e/f && + test_path_is_file y/e/f + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13a-check(info): messages for newly added files' ' + ( + cd 13a && + + git reset --hard && + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*z/e/f.added.in.B^0.*y/e/f out && + test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*z/d.added.in.B^0.*y/d out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep z/ paths && + grep "y/[de]" paths && + + test_path_is_missing z/d && + test_path_is_file y/d && + test_path_is_missing z/e/f && + test_path_is_file y/e/f + ) +' + +# Testcase 13b, Transitive rename with conflicted content merge and default +# "conflict" setting +# (Related to testcase 1c, 9b) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d_1 +# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/d_2 +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_3} +# Expected: y/{b,c,d_merged}, with two conflict messages for y/d, +# one about content, and one about file location + +test_expect_success '13b-setup: messages for transitive rename with conflicted content' ' + test_create_repo 13b && + ( + cd 13b && + + mkdir x && + mkdir z && + test_seq 1 10 >x/d && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add x z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + echo 11 >>x/d && + git add x/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo eleven >>x/d && + git mv x/d z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13b-check(conflict): messages for transitive rename with conflicted content' ' + ( + cd 13b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*content.*Merge.conflict.in.y/d out && + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.*moved.to.y/d out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep z/ paths && + grep "y/d" paths && + + test_path_is_missing z/d && + test_path_is_file y/d + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13b-check(info): messages for transitive rename with conflicted content' ' + ( + cd 13b && + + git reset --hard && + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*content.*Merge.conflict.in.y/d out && + test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.in.B^0.*moving.it.to.y/d out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep z/ paths && + grep "y/d" paths && + + test_path_is_missing z/d && + test_path_is_file y/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 13c, Rename/rename(1to1) due to directory rename +# 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 ( +# 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 +# shown in testcase 13d. + +test_expect_success '13c-setup: messages for rename/rename(1to1) via transitive rename' ' + test_create_repo 13c && + ( + cd 13c && + + mkdir x && + mkdir z && + test_seq 1 10 >x/d && + echo e >x/e && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add x z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + git mv x/d y/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/d && + git add z/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13c-check(conflict): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via transitive rename' ' + ( + cd 13c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.*moved.to.y/d out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep z/ paths && + grep "y/d" paths && + + test_path_is_missing z/d && + test_path_is_file y/d + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13c-check(info): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via transitive rename' ' + ( + cd 13c && + + git reset --hard && + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.in.B^0.*moving.it.to.y/d out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep z/ paths && + grep "y/d" paths && + + test_path_is_missing z/d && + test_path_is_file y/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 13d, Rename/rename(1to1) due to directory rename on both sides +# Commit O: a/{z,y}, b/x, c/w +# Commit A: a/z, b/{y,x}, d/w +# Commit B: a/z, d/x, c/{y,w} +# Expected: a/z, d/{y,x,w} with no file location conflict for x +# Easy cases: +# * z is always in a; so it stays in a. +# * x starts in b, only modified on one side to move into d/ +# * w starts in c, only modified on one side to move into d/ +# Hard case: +# * A renames a/y to b/y, and B renames b/->d/ => a/y -> d/y +# * B renames a/y to c/y, and A renames c/->d/ => a/y -> d/y +# No conflict in where a/y ends up, so put it in d/y. + +test_expect_success '13d-setup: messages for rename/rename(1to1) via dual transitive rename' ' + test_create_repo 13d && + ( + cd 13d && + + mkdir a && + mkdir b && + mkdir c && + echo z >a/z && + echo y >a/y && + echo x >b/x && + echo w >c/w && + git add a b c && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv a/y b/ && + git mv c/ d/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv a/y c/ && + git mv b/ d/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13d-check(conflict): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via dual transitive rename' ' + ( + cd 13d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*a/y.renamed.to.b/y.*moved.to.d/y out && + test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*a/y.renamed.to.c/y.*moved.to.d/y out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep b/ paths && + ! grep c/ paths && + grep "d/y" paths && + + test_path_is_missing b/y && + test_path_is_missing c/y && + test_path_is_file d/y + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13d-check(info): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via dual transitive rename' ' + ( + cd 13d && + + git reset --hard && + git checkout A^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep Path.updated.*a/y.renamed.to.b/y.*moving.it.to.d/y out && + test_i18ngrep Path.updated.*a/y.renamed.to.c/y.*moving.it.to.d/y out && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep b/ paths && + ! grep c/ paths && + grep "d/y" paths && + + test_path_is_missing b/y && + test_path_is_missing c/y && + test_path_is_file d/y + ) +' + +# Testcase 13e, directory rename in virtual merge base +# +# This testcase has a slightly different setup than all the above cases, in +# order to include a recursive case: +# +# A C +# o - o +# / \ / \ +# O o X ? +# \ / \ / +# o o +# B D +# +# Commit O: a/{z,y} +# Commit A: b/{z,y} +# Commit B: a/{z,y,x} +# Commit C: b/{z,y,x} +# Commit D: b/{z,y}, a/x +# Expected: b/{z,y,x} (sort of; see below for why this might not be expected) +# +# NOTES: 'X' represents a virtual merge base. With the default of +# directory rename detection yielding conflicts, merging A and B +# results in a conflict complaining about whether 'x' should be +# under 'a/' or 'b/'. However, when creating the virtual merge +# base 'X', since virtual merge bases need to be written out as a +# tree, we cannot have a conflict, so some resolution has to be +# picked. +# +# In choosing the right resolution, it's worth noting here that +# commits C & D are merges of A & B that choose different +# locations for 'x' (i.e. they resolve the conflict differently), +# and so it would be nice when merging C & D if git could detect +# this difference of opinion and report a conflict. But the only +# way to do so that I can think of would be to have the virtual +# merge base place 'x' in some directory other than either 'a/' or +# 'b/', which seems a little weird -- especially since it'd result +# in a rename/rename(1to2) conflict with a source path that never +# existed in any version. +# +# So, for now, when directory rename detection is set to +# 'conflict' just avoid doing directory rename detection at all in +# the recursive case. This will not allow us to detect a conflict +# in the outer merge for this special kind of setup, but it at +# least avoids hitting a BUG(). +# +test_expect_success '13e-setup: directory rename detection in recursive case' ' + test_create_repo 13e && + ( + cd 13e && + + mkdir a && + echo z >a/z && + echo y >a/y && + git add a && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv a/ b/ && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + echo x >a/x && + git add a && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" && + + git branch C A && + git branch D B && + + git checkout C && + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=conflict merge B && + git add b/x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "C" && + + + git checkout D && + test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=conflict merge A && + git add b/x && + mkdir a && + git mv b/x a/x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "D" + ) +' + +test_expect_success '13e-check: directory rename detection in recursive case' ' + ( + cd 13e && + + git checkout --quiet D^0 && + + git -c merge.directoryRenames=conflict merge -s recursive C^0 >out 2>err && + + test_i18ngrep ! CONFLICT out && + test_i18ngrep ! BUG: err && + test_i18ngrep ! core.dumped err && + test_must_be_empty err && + + git ls-files >paths && + ! grep a/x paths && + grep b/x paths + ) +' + +test_done |