| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Testcases 12b and 12c were both slightly weird; they were marked as
having a weird resolution, but with the note that even straightforward
simple rules can give weird results when the input is bizarre.
However, during optimization work for merge-ort, I discovered a
significant speedup that is possible if we add one more fairly
straightforward rule: we don't bother doing directory rename detection
if there are no new files added to the directory on the other side of
the history to be affected by the directory rename. This seems like an
obvious and straightforward rule, but there was one funny corner case
where directory rename detection could affect only existing files: the
funny corner case where two directories are renamed into each other on
opposite sides of history. In other words, it only results in a
different output for testcases 12b and 12c.
Since we already thought testcases 12b and 12c were weird anyway, and
because the optimization often has a significant effect on common cases
(but is entirely prevented if we can't change how 12b and 12c function),
let's add the additional rule and tweak how 12b and 12c work. Split
both testcases into two (one where we add no new files, and one where
the side that doesn't rename a given directory will add files to it),
and mark them with the new expectation.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
While investigating the issues highlighted by the testcase in the
previous patch, I also found a shortcoming in the directory rename
detection rules. Split testcase 6b into two to explain this issue
and update directory-rename-detection.txt to remove one of the previous
rules that I know believe to be detrimental. Also, update the wording
around testcase 8e; while we are not modifying the results of that
testcase, we were previously unsure of the appropriate resolution of
that test and the new rule makes the previously chosen resolution for
that testcase a bit more solid.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add a new testcase modelled on a real world repository example that
served multiple purposes:
* it uncovered a bug in the current directory rename detection
implementation.
* it is a good test of needing to do directory rename detection for
a series of commits instead of just one (and uses rebase instead
of just merge like all the other tests in this testfile).
* it is an excellent stress test for some of the optimizations in
my new merge-ort engine
I can expand on the final item later when I have submitted more of
merge-ort, but the bug is the main immediate concern. It arises as
follows:
* dir/subdir/ has several files
* almost all files in dir/subdir/ are renamed to folder/subdir/
* one of the files in dir/subdir/ is renamed to folder/subdir/newsubdir/
* If the other side of history (that doesn't do the renames) adds a
new file to dir/subdir/, where should it be placed after the merge?
The most obvious two choices are: (1) leave the new file in dir/subdir/,
don't make it follow the rename, and (2) move the new file to
folder/subdir/, following the rename of most the files. However,
there's a possible third choice here: (3) move the new file to
folder/subdir/newsubdir/. The choice reinforce the fact that
merge.directoryRenames=conflict is a good default, but when the merge
machinery needs to stick it somewhere and notify the user of the
possibility that they might want to place it elsewhere. Surprisingly,
the current code would always choose (3), while the real world
repository was clearly expecting (2) -- move the file along with where
the herd of files was going, not with the special exception.
The problem here is that for the majority of the file renames,
dir/subdir/ -> folder/subdir/
is actually represented as
dir/ -> folder/
This directory rename would have a big weight associated with it since
most the files followed that rename. However, we always consult the
most immediate directory first, and there is only one rename rule for
it:
dir/subdir/ -> folder/subdir/newsubdir/
Since this rule is the only one for mapping from dir/subdir/, it
automatically wins and that directory rename was followed instead of the
desired dir/subdir/ -> folder/subdir/.
Unfortunately, the fix is a bit involved so for now just add the
testcase documenting the issue.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Much like the last commit accepted 'add/add' and 'rename/add'
interchangably, we also want to do the same for 'add/add' and
'rename/rename'. This also allows us to avoid the ambiguity in meaning
with 'rename/rename' (is it two separate files renamed to the same
location, or one file renamed on both sides but differently)?
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
I had long since forgotten the idea behind this test and why it failed,
and took a little while to figure it out. To prevent others from having
to spend a similar time on it, add an explanation in the comments.
However, the reasoning in the explanation makes me question why I
considered it a failure at all. I'm not sure if I had a better reason
when I originally wrote it, but for now just add commentary about the
possible expectations and why it behaves the way it does right now.
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>
|
|
Commit da1e295e00 ("t604[236]: do not run setup in separate tests",
2019-10-22) removed approximately half the tests (which were setup-only
tests) in t6043 by turning them into functions that the subsequent test
would call as their first step. This ensured that any test from this
file could be run entirely independently of all the other tests in the
file. Unfortunately, the call to the new setup function was missed in
two of the test_expect_failure cases. Add them in.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The tests for the merge machinery are spread over several places.
Collect them into t64xx for simplicity. Some notes:
t60[234]*.sh:
Merge tests started in t602*, overgrew bisect and remote tracking
tests in t6030, t6040, and t6041, and nearly overtook replace tests
in t6050. This made picking out relevant tests that I wanted to run
in a tighter loop slightly more annoying for years.
t303*.sh:
These started out as tests for the 'merge-recursive' toplevel command,
but did not restrict to that and had lots of overlap with the
underlying merge machinery.
t7405, t7613:
submodule-specific merge logic started out in submodule.c but was
moved to merge-recursive.c in commit 18cfc08866 ("submodule.c: move
submodule merging to merge-recursive.c", 2018-05-15). Since these
tests are about the logic found in the merge machinery, moving these
tests to be with the merge tests makes sense.
t7607, t7609:
Having tests spread all over the place makes it more likely that
additional tests related to a certain piece of logic grow in all those
other places. Much like t303*.sh, these two tests were about the
underlying merge machinery rather than outer levels.
Tests that were NOT moved:
t76[01]*.sh:
Other than the four tests mentioned above, the remaining tests in
t76[01]*.sh are related to non-recursive merge strategies, parameter
parsing, and other stuff associated with the highlevel builtin/merge.c
rather than the recursive merge machinery.
t3[45]*.sh:
The rebase testcases in t34*.sh also test the merge logic pretty
heavily; sometimes changes I make only trigger failures in the rebase
tests. The rebase tests are already nicely coupled together, though,
and I didn't want to mess that up. Similar comments apply for the
cherry-pick tests in t35*.sh.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Elijah Newren