summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2019-12-01Merge branch 'en/doc-typofix'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-3/+3
Docfix. * en/doc-typofix: Fix spelling errors in no-longer-updated-from-upstream modules multimail: fix a few simple spelling errors sha1dc: fix trivial comment spelling error Fix spelling errors in test commands Fix spelling errors in messages shown to users Fix spelling errors in names of tests Fix spelling errors in comments of testcases Fix spelling errors in code comments Fix spelling errors in documentation outside of Documentation/ Documentation: fix a bunch of typos, both old and new
2019-11-10Fix spelling errors in comments of testcasesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-3/+3
Reported-by: Jens Schleusener <Jens.Schleusener@fossies.org> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-23t604[236]: do not run setup in separate testsLibravatar Elijah Newren1-202/+264
Transform the setup "tests" to setup functions, and have the actual tests call the setup functions. Advantages: * Should make life easier for people working with webby CI/PR builds who have to abuse mice (and their own index finger as well) in order to switch from viewing one testcase to another. Sounds awful; hopefully this will improve things for them. * Improves re-runnability: any failed test in any of these three files can now be re-run in isolation, e.g. ./t6042* --ver --imm -x --run=21 whereas before it would require two tests to be specified to the --run argument, the other needing to be picked out as the relevant setup test from one or two tests before. * Importantly, this still keeps the "setup" and "test" sections somewhat separate to make it easier for readers to discern what is just ancillary setup and what the intent of the test is. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-10-23merge-recursive: fix merging a subdirectory into the root directoryLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+114
We allow renaming all entries in e.g. a directory named z/ into a directory named y/ to be detected as a z/ -> y/ rename, so that if the other side of history adds any files to the directory z/ in the mean time, we can provide the hint that they should be moved to y/. There is no reason to not allow 'y/' to be the root directory, but the code did not handle that case correctly. Add a testcase and the necessary special checks to support this case. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-06merge-recursive: avoid directory rename detection in recursive caseLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+111
Ever since commit 8c8e5bd6eb33 ("merge-recursive: switch directory rename detection default", 2019-04-05), the default handling with directory rename detection was to report a conflict and leave unstaged entries in the index. However, when creating a virtual merge base in the recursive case, we absolutely need a tree, and the only way a tree can be written is if we have no unstaged entries -- otherwise we hit a BUG(). There are a few fixes possible here which at least fix the BUG(), but none of them seem optimal for other reasons; see the comments with the new testcase 13e in t6043 for details (which testcase triggered a BUG() prior to this patch). As such, just opt for a very conservative and simple choice that is still relatively reasonable: have the recursive case treat 'conflict' as 'false' for opt->detect_directory_renames. Reported-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-04-08merge-recursive: switch directory rename detection defaultLibravatar Elijah Newren1-53/+405
When all of x/a, x/b, and x/c have moved to z/a, z/b, and z/c on one branch, there is a question about whether x/d added on a different branch should remain at x/d or appear at z/d when the two branches are merged. There are different possible viewpoints here: A) The file was placed at x/d; it's unrelated to the other files in x/ so it doesn't matter that all the files from x/ moved to z/ on one branch; x/d should still remain at x/d. B) x/d is related to the other files in x/, and x/ was renamed to z/; therefore x/d should be moved to z/d. Since there was no ability to detect directory renames prior to git-2.18, users experienced (A) regardless of context. Choice (B) was implemented in git-2.18, with no option to go back to (A), and has been in use since. However, one user reported that the merge results did not match their expectations, making the change of default problematic, especially since there was no notice printed when directory rename detection moved files. Note that there is also a third possibility here: C) There are different answers depending on the context and content that cannot be determined by git, so this is a conflict. Use a higher stage in the index to record the conflict and notify the user of the potential issue instead of silently selecting a resolution for them. Add an option for users to specify their preference for whether to use directory rename detection, and default to (C). Even when directory rename detection is on, add notice messages about files moved into new directories. As a sidenote, x/d did not have to be a new file here; it could have already existed at some other path and been renamed to x/d, with directory rename detection just renaming it again to z/d. Thus, it's not just new files, but also a modification to all rename types (normal renames, rename/add, rename/delete, rename/rename(1to1), rename/rename(1to2), and rename/rename(2to1)). Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-04-08t6043: fix copied test description to match its purposeLibravatar Elijah Newren1-2/+2
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-11-08t6036, t6043: increase code coverage for file collision handlingLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+37
Stolee's coverage reports found a few code blocks for file collision conflicts that had not previously been covered by testcases; add a few more testcases to cover those too. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-11-08merge-recursive: improve rename/rename(1to2)/add[/add] handlingLibravatar Elijah Newren1-9/+15
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>
2018-11-08merge-recursive: improve handling for rename/rename(2to1) conflictsLibravatar Elijah Newren1-35/+48
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>
2018-07-16t6000-t6999: fix broken &&-chainsLibravatar Eric Sunshine1-1/+1
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08merge-recursive: fix check for skipability of working tree updatesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+1
The can-working-tree-updates-be-skipped check has had a long and blemished history. The update can be skipped iff: a) The merge is clean b) The merge matches what was in HEAD (content, mode, pathname) c) The target path is usable (i.e. not involved in D/F conflict) Traditionally, we split b into parts: b1) The merged result matches the content and mode found in HEAD b2) The merged target path existed in HEAD Steps a & b1 are easy to check; we have always gotten those right. While it is easy to overlook step c, this was fixed seven years ago with commit 4ab9a157d069 ("merge_content(): Check whether D/F conflicts are still present", 2010-09-20). merge-recursive didn't have a readily available way to directly check step b2, so various approximations were used: * In commit b2c8c0a76274 ("merge-recursive: When we detect we can skip an update, actually skip it", 2011-02-28), it was noted that although the code claimed it was skipping the update, it did not actually skip the update. The code was made to skip it, but used lstat(path, ...) as an approximation to path-was-tracked-in-index-before-merge. * In commit 5b448b853030 ("merge-recursive: When we detect we can skip an update, actually skip it", 2011-08-11), the problem with using lstat was noted. It was changed to the approximation path2 && strcmp(path, path2) which is also wrong. !path2 || strcmp(path, path2) would have been better, but would have fallen short with directory renames. * In c5b761fb2711 ("merge-recursive: ensure we write updates for directory-renamed file", 2018-02-14), the problem with the previous approximation was noted and changed to was_tracked(path) That looks close to what we were trying to answer, but was_tracked() as implemented at the time should have been named is_tracked(); it returned something different than what we were looking for. * To make matters more complex, fixing was_tracked() isn't sufficient because the splitting of b into b1 and b2 is wrong. Consider the following merge with a rename/add conflict: side A: modify foo, add unrelated bar side B: rename foo->bar (but don't modify the mode or contents) In this case, the three-way merge of original foo, A's foo, and B's bar will result in a desired pathname of bar with the same mode/contents that A had for foo. Thus, A had the right mode and contents for the file, and it had the right pathname present (namely, bar), but the bar that was present was unrelated to the contents, so the working tree update was not skippable. Fix this by introducing a new function: was_tracked_and_matches(o, path, &mfi.oid, mfi.mode) and use it to directly check for condition b. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-30/+25
If a file on one side of history was renamed, and merely modified on the other side, then applying a directory rename to the modified side gives us a rename/rename(1to2) conflict. We should only apply directory renames to pairs representing either adds or renames. Making this change means that a directory rename testcase that was previously reported as a rename/delete conflict will now be reported as a modify/delete conflict. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08directory rename detection: new testcases showcasing a pair of bugsLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+296
Add a testcase showing spurious rename/rename(1to2) conflicts occurring due to directory rename detection. Also add a pair of testcases dealing with moving directory hierarchies around that were suggested by Stefan Beller as "food for thought" during his review of an earlier patch series, but which actually uncovered a bug. Round things out with a test that is a cross between the two testcases that showed existing bugs in order to make sure we aren't merely addressing problems in isolation but in general. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08merge-recursive: fix remaining directory rename + dirty overwrite casesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-4/+4
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08merge-recursive: fix overwriting dirty files involved in renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+1
This fixes an issue that existed before my directory rename detection patches that affects both normal renames and renames implied by directory rename detection. Additional codepaths that only affect overwriting of dirty files that are involved in directory rename detection will be added in a subsequent commit. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08merge-recursive: avoid clobbering untracked files with directory renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-3/+3
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08merge-recursive: apply necessary modifications for directory renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-25/+25
This commit hooks together all the directory rename logic by making the necessary changes to the rename struct, it's dst_entry, and the diff_filepair under consideration. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-08merge-recursive: check for file level conflicts then get new nameLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+1
Before trying to apply directory renames to paths within the given directories, we want to make sure that there aren't conflicts at the file level either. If there aren't any, then get the new name from any directory renames. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting dirty filesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+458
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting untracked filesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+367
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: miscellaneous testcases to complete coverageLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+564
I came up with the testcases in the first eight sections before coding up the implementation. The testcases in this section were mostly ones I thought of while coding/debugging, and which I was too lazy to insert into the previous sections because I didn't want to re-label with all the testcase references. :-) Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: testcases exploring possibly suboptimal mergesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+404
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: more involved edge/corner testcasesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+396
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: testcases checking which side did the renameLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+336
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+330
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: partially renamed directory testcase/discussionLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+115
Add a long note about why we are not considering "partial directory renames" for the current directory rename detection implementation. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: testcases to avoid taking detection too farLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+153
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: directory splitting testcasesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+143
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20directory rename detection: basic testcasesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+442
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-11Revert "Merge branch 'en/rename-directory-detection'"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-3998/+0
This reverts commit e4bb62fa1eeee689744b413e29a50b4d1dae6886, reversing changes made to 468165c1d8a442994a825f3684528361727cd8c0. The topic appears to inflict severe regression in renaming merges, even though the promise of it was that it would improve them. We do not yet know which exact change in the topic was wrong, but in the meantime, let's play it safe and revert it out of 'master' before real Git-using projects are harmed. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27merge-recursive: ensure we write updates for directory-renamed fileLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+1
When a file is present in HEAD before the merge and the other side of the merge does not modify that file, we try to avoid re-writing the file and making it stat-dirty. However, when a file is present in HEAD before the merge and was in a directory that was renamed by the other side of the merge, we have to move the file to a new location and re-write it. Update the code that checks whether we can skip the update to also work in the presence of directory renames. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-30/+25
If a file on one side of history was renamed, and merely modified on the other side, then applying a directory rename to the modified side gives us a rename/rename(1to2) conflict. We should only apply directory renames to pairs representing either adds or renames. Making this change means that a directory rename testcase that was previously reported as a rename/delete conflict will now be reported as a modify/delete conflict. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27directory rename detection: new testcases showcasing a pair of bugsLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+296
Add a testcase showing spurious rename/rename(1to2) conflicts occurring due to directory rename detection. Also add a pair of testcases dealing with moving directory hierarchies around that were suggested by Stefan Beller as "food for thought" during his review of an earlier patch series, but which actually uncovered a bug. Round things out with a test that is a cross between the two testcases that showed existing bugs in order to make sure we aren't merely addressing problems in isolation but in general. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27merge-recursive: fix remaining directory rename + dirty overwrite casesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-4/+4
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27merge-recursive: fix overwriting dirty files involved in renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+1
This fixes an issue that existed before my directory rename detection patches that affects both normal renames and renames implied by directory rename detection. Additional codepaths that only affect overwriting of dirty files that are involved in directory rename detection will be added in a subsequent commit. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27merge-recursive: avoid clobbering untracked files with directory renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-3/+3
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27merge-recursive: apply necessary modifications for directory renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-25/+25
This commit hooks together all the directory rename logic by making the necessary changes to the rename struct, it's dst_entry, and the diff_filepair under consideration. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14merge-recursive: check for file level conflicts then get new nameLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+1
Before trying to apply directory renames to paths within the given directories, we want to make sure that there aren't conflicts at the file level either. If there aren't any, then get the new name from any directory renames. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting dirty filesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+458
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting untracked filesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+367
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: miscellaneous testcases to complete coverageLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+564
I came up with the testcases in the first eight sections before coding up the implementation. The testcases in this section were mostly ones I thought of while coding/debugging, and which I was too lazy to insert into the previous sections because I didn't want to re-label with all the testcase references. :-) Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: testcases exploring possibly suboptimal mergesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+404
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: more involved edge/corner testcasesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+396
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: testcases checking which side did the renameLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+336
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renamesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+330
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: partially renamed directory testcase/discussionLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+115
Add a long note about why we are not considering "partial directory renames" for the current directory rename detection implementation. Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: testcases to avoid taking detection too farLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+153
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: directory splitting testcasesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+143
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-14directory rename detection: basic testcasesLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+442
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>