summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t3030-merge-recursive.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2010-09-15Merge branch 'ks/recursive-rename-add-identical'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+35
* ks/recursive-rename-add-identical: RE: [PATCH] Avoid rename/add conflict when contents are identical
2010-09-03RE: [PATCH] Avoid rename/add conflict when contents are identicalLibravatar Schalk, Ken1-0/+35
>Due to this this (and maybe all the tests) need to depend on the >SYMLINKS prereq. Here's a third attempt with no use of symlinks in the test: Skip the entire rename/add conflict case if the file added on the other branch has the same contents as the file being renamed. This avoids giving the user an extra copy of the same file and presenting a conflict that is confusing and pointless. A simple test of this case has been added in t/t3030-merge-recursive.sh. Signed-off-by: Ken Schalk <ken.schalk@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-08-11unpack_trees: group error messages by typeLibravatar Matthieu Moy1-1/+1
When an error is encountered, it calls add_rejected_file() which either - directly displays the error message and stops if in plumbing mode (i.e. if show_all_errors is not initialized at 1) - or stores it so that it will be displayed at the end with display_error_msgs(), Storing the files by error type permits to have a list of files for which there is the same error instead of having a serie of almost identical errors. As each bind_overlap error combines a file and an old file, a list cannot be done, therefore, theses errors are not stored but directly displayed. Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-06-11merge-recursive: demonstrate an incorrect conflict with submoduleLibravatar Johannes Sixt1-0/+29
When one side of a merge turns a directory into a submodule, and the other side does not touch that directory (but has other non-conflicting changes), then a merge should succeed. But currently, it does not; it rather fails with a file/directory conflict. Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-01-12Be more user-friendly when refusing to do something because of conflict.Libravatar Matthieu Moy1-2/+4
Various commands refuse to run in the presence of conflicts (commit, merge, pull, cherry-pick/revert). They all used to provide rough, and inconsistant error messages. A new variable advice.resolveconflict is introduced, and allows more verbose messages, pointing the user to the appropriate solution. For commit, the error message used to look like this: $ git commit foo.txt: needs merge foo.txt: unmerged (c34a92682e0394bc0d6f4d4a67a8e2d32395c169) foo.txt: unmerged (3afcd75de8de0bb5076942fcb17446be50451030) foo.txt: unmerged (c9785d77b76dfe4fb038bf927ee518f6ae45ede4) error: Error building trees The "need merge" line is given by refresh_cache. We add the IN_PORCELAIN option to make the output more consistant with the other porcelain commands, and catch the error in return, to stop with a clean error message. The next lines were displayed by a call to cache_tree_update(), which is not reached anymore if we noticed the conflict. The new output looks like: U foo.txt fatal: 'commit' is not possible because you have unmerged files. Please, fix them up in the work tree, and then use 'git add/rm <file>' as appropriate to mark resolution and make a commit, or use 'git commit -a'. Pull is slightly modified to abort immediately if $GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD exists instead of waiting for merge to complain. The behavior of merge and the test-case are slightly modified to reflect the usual flow: start with conflicts, fix them, and afterwards get rid of MERGE_HEAD, with different error messages at each stage. Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-06-01refuse to merge during a mergeLibravatar Clemens Buchacher1-0/+3
The following is an easy mistake to make for users coming from version control systems with an "update and commit"-style workflow. 1. git pull 2. resolve conflicts 3. git pull Step 3 overrides MERGE_HEAD, starting a new merge with dirty index. IOW, probably not what the user intended. Instead, refuse to merge again if a merge is in progress. Reported-by: Dave Olszewski <cxreg@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-26Remove empty directories in recursive mergeLibravatar Alex Riesen1-0/+11
The code was actually supposed to do that, but was accidentally broken. Noticed by Anders Melchiorsen. Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
2008-09-03tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t0000 - t3599)Libravatar Nanako Shiraishi1-7/+7
Converts tests between t0050-t3903. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-08-23merge: fix numerus bugs around "trivial merge" areaLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+11
The "trivial merge" codepath wants to optimize itself by making an internal call to the read-tree machinery, but it does not read the index before doing so, and the codepath is never exercised. Incidentally, this failure to read the index upfront means that the safety to refuse doing anything when the index is unmerged does not kick in, either. These two problem are fixed by using read_cache_unmerged() that does read the index before checking if it is unmerged at the beginning of cmd_merge(). The primary logic of the merge, however, assumes that the process never reads the index in-core, and the call to write_cache_as_tree() it makes from write_tree_trivial() will always read from the on-disk index that is prepared the strategy back-ends. This assumption is now broken by the above fix. To fix this issue, we now call discard_cache() before calling write_tree_trivial() when it wants to write the on-disk index as a tree. When multiple strategies are tried, their results are evaluated by reading the resulting index and inspecting it. The codepath needs to make a call to read_cache() for each successful strategy, and for that to work, they need to discard_cache() the one read by the previous round. Also the "trivial merge" forgot that the current commit is one of the parents of the resulting commit. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-05-24tests: do not use implicit "git diff --no-index"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-21/+21
As a general principle, we should not use "git diff" to validate the results of what git command that is being tested has done. We would not know if we are testing the command in question, or locating a bug in the cute hack of "git diff --no-index". Rather use test_cmp for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-06-07War on whitespaceLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+0
This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-04-19Remove case-sensitive file in t3030-merge-recursive.Libravatar Brian Gernhardt1-52/+52
Rename "A" to the unused "c" Signed-off-by: Brian Gernhardt <benji@silverinsanity.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-04-10t3030: merge-recursive backend test.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+528
We have fairly extensive coverage of read-tree 3-way machinery, and many Porcelain-ish tests use git-merge front-end tests, but we did not have good basic test for merge-recursive, which made it very hard to hack on it. I used this during the recent work to teach D/F conflicts to merge-recursive. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>