summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2021-09-07tests: stop testing `git rebase --preserve-merges`Libravatar Johannes Schindelin1-19/+0
This backend has been deprecated in favor of `git rebase --rebase-merges`. In preparation for dropping it, let's remove all the regression tests that would need it. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Reviewed-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11rebase: reinstate --no-keep-emptyLibravatar Elijah Newren1-6/+4
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was: 1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an override flag 2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with every rebase). While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial. Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving --keep-empty as the default. This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop commits they don't want with an interactive rebase. Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com> Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase: rename the two primary rebase backendsLibravatar Elijah Newren1-17/+17
Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase tests: mark tests specific to the am-backend with --amLibravatar Elijah Newren1-17/+17
We have many rebase tests in the testsuite, and often the same test is repeated multiple times just testing different backends. For those tests that were specifically trying to test the am backend, add the --am flag. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the defaultLibravatar Elijah Newren1-8/+8
Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the --keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior. The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there directly applies here. It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare, which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with --allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have --keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure. Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/ which noted Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases. and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general how those flags should behave otherwise. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-21t: teach test_cmp_rev to accept ! for not-equalsLibravatar Denton Liu1-3/+3
In the case where we are using test_cmp_rev() to report not-equals, we write `! test_cmp_rev`. However, since test_cmp_rev() contains r1=$(git rev-parse --verify "$1") && r2=$(git rev-parse --verify "$2") && `! test_cmp_rev` will succeed if any of the rev-parses fail. This behavior is not desired. We want the rev-parses to _always_ be successful. Rewrite test_cmp_rev() to optionally accept "!" as the first argument to do a not-equals comparison. Rewrite `! test_cmp_rev` to `test_cmp_rev !` in all tests to take advantage of this new functionality. Also, rewrite the rev-parse logic to end with a `|| return 1` instead of &&-chaining into the rev-comparison logic. This makes it obvious to future readers that we explicitly intend on returning early if either of the rev-parses fail. Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-27rebase tests: test linear branch topologyLibravatar Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason1-0/+29
Add tests rebasing a linear branch topology to linear rebase tests added in 2aad7cace2 ("add simple tests of consistency across rebase types", 2013-06-06). These tests are duplicates of two surrounding tests that do the same with tags pointing to the same objects. Right now there's no change in behavior being introduced, but as we'll see in a subsequent change rebase can have different behaviors when working implicitly with remote tracking branches. While I'm at it add a --fork-point test, strictly speaking this is redundant to the existing '' test, as no argument to rebase implies --fork-point. But now it's easier to grep for tests that explicitly stress --fork-point. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-07rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machineryLibravatar Elijah Newren1-5/+5
As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior, modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by re-implementing it on top of the latter. Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c. This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes: * The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples) * A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421) * bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use; this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903) testcase modification notes: t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am, rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect --merge and --interactive to have the same output. t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo! t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is now REBASE-i. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-11-02tests: optionally skip `git rebase -p` testsLibravatar Johannes Schindelin1-18/+18
The `--preserve-merges` mode of the `rebase` command is slated to be deprecated soon, as the more powerful `--rebase-merges` mode is available now, and the latter was designed with the express intent to address the shortcomings of `--preserve-merges`' design (e.g. the inability to reorder commits in an interactive rebase). As such, we will eventually even remove the `--preserve-merges` support, and along with it, its tests. In preparation for this, and also to allow the Windows phase of our automated tests to save some well-needed time when running the test suite, this commit introduces a new prerequisite REBASE_P, which can be forced to being unmet by setting the environment variable `GIT_TEST_SKIP_REBASE_P` to any non-empty string. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-06rebase -i --root: let the sequencer handle even the initial partLibravatar Johannes Schindelin1-3/+3
In this developer's earlier attempt to accelerate interactive rebases by converting large parts from Unix shell script into portable, performant C, the --root handling was specifically excluded (to simplify the task a little bit; it still took over a year to get that reduced set of patches into Git proper). This patch ties up that loose end: now only --preserve-merges uses the slow Unix shell script implementation to perform the interactive rebase. As the rebase--helper reports progress to stderr (unlike the scripted interactive rebase, which reports it to stdout, of all places), we have to adjust a couple of tests that did not expect that for `git rebase -i --root`. This patch fixes -- at long last! -- the really old bug reported in 6a6bc5bdc4d (add tests for rebasing root, 2013-06-06) that rebasing with --root *always* rewrote the root commit, even if there were no changes. The bug still persists in --preserve-merges mode, of course, but that mode will be deprecated as soon as the new --rebase-merges mode stabilizes, anyway. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-26rebase --rebase-merges: add test for --keep-emptyLibravatar Phillip Wood1-0/+1
If there are empty commits on the left hand side of $upstream...HEAD then the empty commits on the right hand side that we want to keep are being pruned. Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-03-29rebase --keep-empty: always use interactive rebaseLibravatar Phillip Wood1-2/+2
rebase --merge accepts --keep-empty but just ignores it, by using an implicit interactive rebase the user still gets the rename detection of a merge based rebase but with with --keep-empty support. If rebase --keep-empty without --interactive or --merge stops for the user to resolve merge conflicts then 'git rebase --continue' will fail. This is because it uses a different code path that does not create $git_dir/rebase-apply. As rebase --keep-empty was implemented using cherry-pick it has never supported the am options and now that interactive rebases support --signoff there is no loss of functionality by using an implicit interactive rebase. Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-03-29rebase -i --keep-empty: don't prune empty commitsLibravatar Phillip Wood1-1/+1
If there are empty commits on the left hand side of $upstream...HEAD then the empty commits on the right hand side that we want to keep are pruned by --cherry-pick. Fix this by using --cherry-mark instead of --cherry-pick and keeping the commits that are empty or are not marked as cherry-picks. Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-04-24git-rebase--merge: don't include absent parent as a baseLibravatar Ben Woosley1-2/+2
Absent this fix, attempts to rebase an orphan branch using "rebase -m" fails with: $ git rebase -m ORPHAN_TARGET_BASE First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it... fatal: Could not parse object 'ORPHAN_ROOT_SHA^' Unknown exit code (128) from command: git-merge-recursive ORPHAN_ROOT_SHA^ -- HEAD ORPHAN_ROOT_SHA To fix, this will only include the rebase root's parent as a base if it exists, so that in cases of rebasing an orphan branch, it is a simple two-way merge. Note the default rebase behavior does not fail: $ git rebase ORPHAN_TARGET_BASE First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it... Applying: ORPHAN_ROOT_COMMIT_MSG Using index info to reconstruct a base tree... A few tests were expecting the old behaviour to forbid rebasing such a history with "rebase -m", which now need to expect them to succeed. Signed-off-by: Ben Woosley <ben.woosley@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-18rebase topology tests: fix commit names on case-insensitive file systemsLibravatar Johannes Sixt1-10/+10
The recently introduced tests used uppercase letters to denote cherry-picks of commits having the corresponding lowercase letter names. The helper functions also set up tags with the names of the commits. But this constellation fails on case-insensitive file systems because there cannot be distinct tags with names that differ only in case. Use a less subtle convention for the names of cherry-picked commits. Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-07add tests for rebasing rootLibravatar Martin von Zweigbergk1-0/+129
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-07add tests for rebasing of empty commitsLibravatar Martin von Zweigbergk1-0/+58
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-07add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence presentLibravatar Martin von Zweigbergk1-0/+85
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-07add simple tests of consistency across rebase typesLibravatar Martin von Zweigbergk1-0/+78
Helped-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>