summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t6024-recursive-merge.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2020-02-07t6024: update for SHA-256Libravatar brian m. carlson1-5/+10
To make this test work with SHA-256, compute two of the items in the conflicted index entry. The other entry is a conflict within a conflict and computing it is difficult, so use test_oid_cache to specify the proper values for both hash algorithms. Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-07t6024: modernize styleLibravatar Elijah Newren1-63/+67
No substantive changes, just a few cosmetic changes: * Indent steps of an individual test * Don't have logic between the "test_expect_success" blocks that the next block will depend upon, move it into the test_expect_success section itself * Fix spacing around redirection operators to match git style Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-29commit-graph: define GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPHLibravatar Derrick Stolee1-3/+3
The commit-graph feature is tested in isolation by t5318-commit-graph.sh and t6600-test-reach.sh, but there are many more interesting scenarios involving commit walks. Many of these scenarios are covered by the existing test suite, but we need to maintain coverage when the optional commit-graph structure is not present. To allow running the full test suite with the commit-graph present, add a new test environment variable, GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH. Similar to GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX, this variable makes every Git command try to load the commit-graph when parsing commits, and writes the commit-graph file after every 'git commit' command. There are a few tests that rely on commits not existing in pack-files to trigger important events, so manually set GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH to false for the necessary commands. There is one test in t6024-recursive-merge.sh that relies on the merge-base algorithm picking one of two ambiguous merge-bases, and the commit-graph feature changes which merge-base is picked. Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-05-09ll-merge: use a longer conflict marker for internal mergeLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
The primary use of conflict markers is to help the user who resolves the final (outer) merge by hand to show which part came from which branch by separating the blocks of lines apart. When the conflicted parts from a "virtual ancestor" merge created by merge-recursive remains in the common ancestor part in the final result, however, the conflict markers that are the same size as the final merge become harder to see. Increase the conflict marker size slightly for these inner merges so that the markers from the final merge and cruft from internal merge can be distinguished more easily. This would help reduce the common issue that prevents "rerere" from being used on a really complex conflict. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-11-09tests: add missing &&Libravatar Jonathan Nieder1-1/+1
Breaks in a test assertion's && chain can potentially hide failures from earlier commands in the chain. Commands intended to fail should be marked with !, test_must_fail, or test_might_fail. The examples in this patch do not require that. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-07-01Remove filename from conflict markersLibravatar Martin Renold1-5/+4
Put filenames into the conflict markers only when they are different. Otherwise they are redundant information clutter. Print the filename explicitely when warning about a binary conflict. Signed-off-by: Martin Renold <martinxyz@gmx.ch> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-12-24merge-recursive: mark rename/delete conflict as unmergedLibravatar Johannes Schindelin1-0/+23
When a file was renamed in one branch, but deleted in the other, one should expect the index to contain an unmerged entry, namely the target of the rename. Make it so. Noticed by Constantine Plotnikov. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-07-13t/: Use "test_must_fail git" instead of "! git"Libravatar Stephan Beyer1-2/+4
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git". This is useful to - make sure the test does not fail because of a signal, e.g. SIGSEGV, and - advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests. Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-05-24tests: do not use implicit "git diff --no-index"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+2
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>
2008-03-01t6024: move "git reset" to prepare for a test inside the test itselfLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Noticed by Mike Hommey. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-01Sane use of test_expect_failureLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test *should* succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-07-02Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-4/+4
This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-06-04merge-recursive: refuse to merge binary filesLibravatar Johannes Schindelin1-0/+14
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-04-16Fix permissions on test scriptsLibravatar Alex Riesen1-0/+0
Make every test executable. Remove exec-attribute from included shell files, they can't used standalone anyway. Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-03-04Get rid of the dependency to GNU diff in the testsLibravatar Johannes Schindelin1-2/+2
Now that "git diff" handles stdin and relative paths outside the working tree correctly, we can convert all instances of "diff -u" to "git diff". This commit is really the result of $ perl -pi.bak -e 's/diff -u/git diff/' $(git grep -l "diff -u" t/) Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> (cherry picked from commit c699a40d68215c7e44a5b26117a35c8a56fbd387)
2006-12-28t6024-recursive-merge: quiet down this testLibravatar Eric Wong1-43/+47
We get an extra measure of error checking here as well. While we're at it, also removed a less portable use of export. Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-23Display 'theirs' branch name when possible in merge.Libravatar Shawn O. Pearce1-3/+3
Displaying the SHA1 of 'their' branch (the branch being merged into the current branch) is not nearly as friendly as just displaying the name of that branch, especially if that branch is already local to this repository. git-merge now sets the environment variable 'GITHEAD_%(sha1)=%(name)' for each argument it gets passed, making the actual input name that resolved to the commit '%(sha1)' easily available to the invoked merge strategy. git-merge-recursive makes use of these environment variables when they are available by using '%(name)' whenever it outputs the commit identification rather than '%(sha1)'. This is most obvious in the conflict hunks created by xdl_merge: $ git mege sideb~1 <<<<<<< HEAD:INSTALL Good! ======= Oops. >>>>>>> sideb~1:INSTALL [jc: adjusted a test script and a minor constness glitch.] Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-12merge-recursive: add/add really is modify/modify with an empty baseLibravatar Johannes Schindelin1-1/+11
Unify the handling for cases C (add/add) and D (modify/modify). Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-12-12add test case for recursive mergeLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+70
This test case is based on the bug report by Shawn Pearce. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>