| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
When we have a rename/rename(1to2) conflict, each of the renames can
collide with a file addition. Each of these rename/add conflicts suffered
from the same kinds of problems that normal rename/add suffered from.
Make the code use handle_file_conflicts() as well so that we get all the
same fixes and consistent behavior between the different conflict types.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
This makes the rename/rename(2to1) conflicts use the new
handle_file_collision() function. Since that function was based
originally on the rename/rename(2to1) handling code, the main
differences here are in what was added. In particular:
* Instead of storing files at collide_path~HEAD and collide_path~MERGE,
the files are two-way merged and recorded at collide_path.
* Instead of recording the version of the renamed file that existed
on the renamed side in the index (thus ignoring any changes that
were made to the file on the side of history without the rename),
we do a three-way content merge on the renamed path, then store
that at either stage 2 or stage 3.
* Note that since the content merge for each rename may have conflicts,
and then we have to merge the two renamed files, we can end up with
nested conflict markers.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
This makes the rename/add conflict handling make use of the new
handle_file_collision() function, which fixes several bugs and improves
things for the rename/add case significantly. Previously, rename/add
would:
* Not leave any higher order stage entries in the index, making it
appear as if there were no conflict.
* Would place the rename file at the colliding path, and move the
added file elsewhere, which combined with the lack of higher order
stage entries felt really odd. It's not clear to me why the
rename should take precedence over the add; if one should be moved
out of the way, they both probably should.
* In the recursive case, it would do a two way merge of the added
file and the version of the renamed file on the renamed side,
completely excluding modifications to the renamed file on the
unrenamed side of history.
Use the new handle_file_collision() to fix all of these issues.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When a single file is renamed, it can also be modified, yielding the
possibility of that renamed file having content conflicts. If two
different such files are renamed into the same location, then two-way
merging those files may result in nested conflicts. Add a testcase that
makes sure we get this case correct, and uses different lengths of
conflict markers to differentiate between the different nestings.
Also add another case with an extra (i.e. third) level of conflict
markers due to using merge.conflictstyle=diff3 and the virtual merge
base also having conflicts present.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add testcases dealing with file collisions for the following types of
conflicts:
* add/add
* rename/add
* rename/rename(2to1)
All these conflict types simplify down to two files "colliding"
and should thus be handled similarly. This means that rename/add and
rename/rename(2to1) conflicts need to be modified to behave the same as
add/add conflicts currently do: the colliding files should be two-way
merged (instead of the current behavior of writing the two colliding
files out to separate temporary unique pathnames). Add testcases which
check this; subsequent commits will fix the conflict handling to make
these tests pass.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
"git merge --abort" etc. did not clean things up properly when
there were conflicted entries in the index in certain order that
are involved in D/F conflicts. This has been corrected.
* en/abort-df-conflict-fixes:
read-cache: fix directory/file conflict handling in read_index_unmerged()
t1015: demonstrate directory/file conflict recovery failures
|
|
Various glitches in the heuristics of merge-recursive strategy have
been documented in new tests.
* en/t6042-insane-merge-rename-testcases:
t6042: add testcase covering long chains of rename conflicts
t6042: add testcase covering rename/rename(2to1)/delete/delete conflict
t6042: add testcase covering rename/add/delete conflict type
|
|
read_index_unmerged() has two intended purposes:
* return 1 if there are any unmerged entries, 0 otherwise
* drops any higher-stage entries down to stage #0
There are several callers of read_index_unmerged() that check the return
value to see if it is non-zero, all of which then die() if that condition
is met. For these callers, dropping higher-stage entries down to stage #0
is a waste of resources, and returning immediately on first unmerged entry
would be better. But it's probably only a very minor difference and isn't
the focus of this series.
The remaining callers ignore the return value and call this function for
the side effect of dropping higher-stage entries down to stage #0. As
mentioned in commit e11d7b596970 ("'reset --merge': fix unmerged case",
2009-12-31),
The _only_ reason we want to keep a previously unmerged entry in the
index at stage #0 is so that we don't forget the fact that we have
corresponding file in the work tree in order to be able to remove it
when the tree we are resetting to does not have the path.
In fact, prior to commit d1a43f2aa4bf ("reset --hard/read-tree --reset -u:
remove unmerged new paths", 2008-10-15), read_index_unmerged() did just
remove unmerged entries from the cache immediately but that had the
unwanted effect of leaving around new untracked files in the tree from
aborted merges.
So, that's the intended purpose of this function. The problem is that
when directory/files conflicts are present, trying to add the file to the
index at stage 0 fails (because there is still a directory in the way),
and the function returns early with a -1 return code to signify the error.
As noted above, none of the callers who want the drop-to-stage-0 behavior
check the return status, though, so this means all remaining unmerged
entries remain in the index and the callers proceed assuming otherwise.
Users then see errors of the form:
error: 'DIR-OR-FILE' appears as both a file and as a directory
error: DIR-OR-FILE: cannot drop to stage #0
and potentially also messages about other unmerged entries which came
lexicographically later than whatever pathname was both a file and a
directory. Google finds a few hits searching for those messages,
suggesting there were probably a couple people who hit this besides me.
Luckily, calling `git reset --hard` multiple times would workaround
this bug.
Since the whole purpose here is to just put the entry *temporarily* into
the index so that any associated file in the working copy can be removed,
we can just skip the DFCHECK and allow both the file and directory to
appear in the index. The temporary simultaneous appearance of the
directory and file entries in the index will be removed by the callers
by calling unpack_trees(), which excludes these unmerged entries marked
with CE_CONFLICTED flag from the resulting index, before they attempt to
write the index anywhere.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Each rename is a lego: the source side could be connected to a delete or
another rename, and the destination side could be connected to a rename or a
conflicting add. Previous tests combined these to get e.g.
rename/rename(1to2)/add/add, rename/rename(2to1)/delete/delete, and
rename/add/delete. But we can also build bigger chains of conflicts. Add a
testcase demonstrating this.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
If either side of a rename/rename(2to1) conflict is itself also involved
in a rename/delete conflict, then the conflict is a little more complex;
we can even have what I'd call a rename/rename(2to1)/delete/delete
conflict. (In some ways, this is similar to a rename/rename(1to2)/add/add
conflict, as added in commit 3672c9714830 ("merge-recursive: Fix working
copy handling for rename/rename/add/add", 2011-08-11)). Add a testcase
for such a conflict.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
If a file is renamed on one side of history, and the other side of history
both deletes the original file and adds a new unrelated file in the way of
the rename, then we have what I call a rename/add/delete conflict. Add a
testcase covering this scenario.
Reported-by: Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
These tests used pretty strong measures to get a clean slate:
git rm -rf . &&
git clean -fdqx &&
rm -rf .git &&
git init &&
It's easier, safer (what if a previous test has a bug and accidentally
changes into a directory outside the test path?), and allows re-inspecting
test setup later if we instead just use test_create_repo to put different
tests into separate sub-repositories.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Mark strings in merge-recursive for translation.
Some tests would start to fail with GETTEXT_POISON turned on after
this update. Use test_i18ncmp and test_i18ngrep where appropriate
to mark strings that should only be checked in the C locale output
to avoid such issues.
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Prefer:
test_line_count <OP> COUNT FILE
over:
test $(wc -l <FILE) <OP> COUNT
(or similar usages) in several tests.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
If either side of a rename/rename(1to2) conflict is itself also involved
in a rename/add-dest conflict, then we need to make sure both the rename
and the added file appear in the working copy.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Each side of the rename in rename/rename(1to2) could potentially also be
involved in a rename/add conflict. Ensure stages for such conflicts are
also recorded.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Our previous conflict resolution for renaming two different files to the
same name ignored the fact that each of those files may have modifications
from both sides of history to consider. We need to do a three-way merge
for each of those files, and then handle the conflict of both sets of
merged contents trying to be recorded with the same name.
It is important to note that this changes our strategy in the recursive
case. After doing a three-way content merge of each of the files
involved, we still are faced with the fact that we are trying to put both
of the results (including conflict markers) into the same path. We could
do another two-way merge, but I think that becomes confusing. Also,
taking a hint from the modify/delete and rename/delete cases we handled
earlier, a more useful "common ground" would be to keep the three-way
content merge but record it with the original filename. The renames can
still be detected, we just allow it to be done in the o->call_depth=0
case. This seems to result in simpler & easier to understand merge
conflicts as well, as evidenced by some of the changes needed in our
testsuite in t6036. (However, it should be noted that this change will
cause problems those renames also occur along with a file being added
whose name matches the source of the rename. Since git currently cannot
detect rename/add-source situations, though, this codepath is not
currently used for those cases anyway.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Whenever there are merge conflicts in file contents, we would mark the
different sides of the conflict with the two branches being merged.
However, when there is a rename involved as well, the branchname is not
sufficient to specify where the conflicting content came from. In such
cases, mark the two sides of the conflict with branchname:filename rather
than just branchname.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When dealing with file merging and renames and D/F conflicts and possible
criss-cross merges (how's that for a corner case?), we did not do a
thorough job ensuring the index and working directory had the correct
contents. Fix the logic in merge_content() to handle this. Also,
correct some erroneous tests in t6022 that were expecting the wrong number
of unmerged index entries. These changes fix one of the tests in t6042
(and almost fix another one from t6042 as well).
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In the recursive case (o->call_depth > 0), we do not modify the working
directory. However, when o->call_depth==0, file renames can mean we need
to delete the old filename from the working copy. Since there have been
lots of changes and mistakes here, let's go through the details. Let's
start with a simple explanation of what we are trying to achieve:
Original goal: If a file is renamed on the side of history being merged
into head, the filename serving as the source of that rename needs to be
removed from the working directory.
The path to getting the above statement implemented in merge-recursive took
several steps. The relevant bits of code may be instructive to keep in
mind for the explanation, especially since an English-only description
involves double negatives that are hard to follow. These bits of code are:
int remove_file(..., const char *path, int no_wd)
{
...
int update_working_directory = !o->call_depth && !no_wd;
and
remove_file(o, 1, ren1_src, <expression>);
Where the choice for <expression> has morphed over time:
65ac6e9 (merge-recursive: adjust to loosened "working file clobbered"
check 2006-10-27), introduced the "no_wd" parameter to remove_file() and
used "1" for <expression>. This meant ren1_src was never deleted, leaving
it around in the working copy.
In 8371234 (Remove uncontested renamed files during merge. 2006-12-13),
<expression> was changed to "index_only" (where index_only ==
!!o->call_depth; see b7fa51da). This was equivalent to using "0" for
<expression> (due to the early logic in remove_file), and is orthogonal to
the condition we actually want to check at this point; it resulted in the
source file being removed except when index_only was false. This was
problematic because the file could have been renamed on the side of history
including head, in which case ren1_src could correspond to an untracked
file that should not be deleted.
In 183d797 (Keep untracked files not involved in a merge. 2007-02-04),
<expression> was changed to "index_only || stage == 3". While this gives
correct behavior, the "index_only ||" portion of <expression> is
unnecessary and makes the code slightly harder to follow.
There were also two further changes to this expression, though without
any change in behavior. First in b7fa51d (merge-recursive: get rid of the
index_only global variable 2008-09-02), it was changed to "o->call_depth
|| stage == 3". (index_only == !!o->call_depth). Later, in 41d70bd6
(merge-recursive: Small code clarification -- variable name and comments),
this was changed to "o->call_depth || renamed_stage == 2" (where stage was
renamed to other_stage and renamed_stage == other_stage ^ 1).
So we ended with <expression> being "o->call_depth || renamed_stage == 2".
But the "o->call_depth ||" piece was unnecessary. We can remove it,
leaving us with <expression> being "renamed_stage == 2". This doesn't
change behavior at all, but it makes the code clearer. Which is good,
because it's about to get uglier.
Corrected goal: If a file is renamed on the side of history being merged
into head, the filename serving as the source of that rename needs to be
removed from the working directory *IF* that file is tracked in head AND
the file tracked in head is related to the original file.
Note that the only difference between the original goal and the corrected
goal is the two extra conditions added at the end. The first condition is
relevant in a rename/delete conflict. If the file was deleted on the
HEAD side of the merge and an untracked file of the same name was added to
the working copy, then without that extra condition the untracked file
will be erroneously deleted. This changes <expression> to "renamed_stage
== 2 || !was_tracked(ren1_src)".
The second additional condition is relevant in two cases.
The first case the second condition can occur is when a file is deleted
and a completely different file is added with the same name. To my
knowledge, merge-recursive has no mechanism for detecting deleted-and-
replaced-by-different-file cases, so I am simply punting on this
possibility.
The second case for the second condition to occur is when there is a
rename/rename/add-source conflict. That is, when the original file was
renamed on both sides of history AND the original filename is being
re-used by some unrelated (but tracked) content. This case also presents
some additional difficulties for us since we cannot currently detect these
rename/rename/add-source conflicts; as long as the rename detection logic
"optimizes" by ignoring filenames that are present at both ends of the
diff, these conflicts will go unnoticed. However, rename/rename conflicts
are handled by an entirely separate codepath not being discussed here, so
this case is not relevant for the line of code under consideration.
In summary:
Change <expression> from "o->call_depth || renamed_stage == 2" to
"renamed_stage == 2 || !was_tracked(ren1_src)", in order to remove
unnecessary code and avoid deleting untracked files.
96 lines of explanation in the changelog to describe a one-line fix...
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add testcases that cover three failures with current git merge, all
involving renaming one file on both sides of history:
Case 1:
If a single file is renamed to two different filenames on different sides
of history, there should be a conflict. Adding a new file on one of those
sides of history whose name happens to match the rename source should not
cause the merge to suddenly succeed.
Case 2:
If a single file is renamed on both sides of history but renamed
identically, there should not be a conflict. This works fine. However,
if one of those sides also added a new file that happened to match the
rename source, then that file should be left alone. Currently, the
rename/rename conflict handling causes that new file to become untracked.
Case 3:
If a single file is renamed to two different filenames on different sides
of history, there should be a conflict. This works currently. However,
if those renames also involve rename/add conflicts (i.e. there are new
files on one side of history that match the destination of the rename of
the other side of history), then the resulting conflict should be recorded
in the index, showing that there were multiple files with a given filename.
Currently, git silently discards one of file versions.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
rename/rename conflicts, both with one file being renamed to two different
files and with two files being renamed to the same file, should leave the
index and the working copy in a sane state with appropriate conflict
recording, auxiliary files, etc. Git seems to handle one of the two cases
alright, but has some problems with the two files being renamed to one
case. Add tests for both cases.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add testcases that cover a variety of merge issues with files being
renamed and modified on different sides of history, when there are
directories possibly conflicting with the rename location.
Case 1:
On one side of history, a file is modified and a new directory is added.
On the other side of history, the file is modified in a non-conflicting
way but is renamed to the location of the new directory.
Case 2:
[Same as case 1, but there is also a content conflict. In detail:]
On one side of history, a file is modified and a new directory is added.
On the other side of history, the file is modified in a conflicting way
and it is renamed to the location of the new directory.
Case 3:
[Similar to case 1, but the "conflicting" directory is the directory
where the file original resided. In detail:]
On one side of history, a file is modified. On the other side of history,
the file is modified in a non-conflicting way, but the directory it was
under is removed and the file is renamed to the location of the directory
it used to reside in (i.e. 'sub/file' gets renamed to 'sub'). This is
flagged as a directory/rename conflict, but should be able to be resolved
since the directory can be cleanly removed by the merge.
One branch renames a file and makes a file where the directory the renamed
file used to be in, and the other branch updates the file in
place. Merging them should resolve it cleanly as long as the content level
change on the branches do not overlap and rename is detected, or should
leave conflict without losing information.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
There are cases where history should merge cleanly, and which current git
does merge cleanly despite not detecting a rename; however the merge
currently nukes files that should not be removed.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
An undetected rename can cause a silent success where a conflict should
have been detected, or can cause an erroneous conflict state where the
merge should have been resolvable. Add testcases for both.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
If there is a cleanly resolvable rename/modify conflict AND there is a new
file introduced on the renamed side of the merge whose name happens to
match that of the source of the rename (but is otherwise unrelated to the
rename), then git fails to cleanly resolve the merge despite the fact that
the new file should not cause any problems.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Current git will nuke an untracked file during a rename/delete conflict if
(a) there is an untracked file whose name matches the source of a rename
and (b) the merge is done in a certain direction. Add a simple testcase
demonstrating this bug.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Elijah Newren
Junio C Hamano
Eric Sunshine
Jiang Xin
Stefano Lattarini