From 6c74948f2065bcab445a2db6d489147f84c73a53 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Elijah Newren Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:29:15 +0000 Subject: t6416, t6423: clarify some comments and fix some typos Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- t/t6416-recursive-corner-cases.sh | 2 +- t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh | 25 ++++++++++++------------- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t6416-recursive-corner-cases.sh b/t/t6416-recursive-corner-cases.sh index d272b418e4..fd98989b14 100755 --- a/t/t6416-recursive-corner-cases.sh +++ b/t/t6416-recursive-corner-cases.sh @@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git detects conflict merging criss-cross+modify/delete, rev # # So choice 5 at least provides some kind of conflict for the original case, # and can merge cleanly as expected with D1 and E3. It also made things just -# slightly funny for merging D1 and e$, where E4 is defined as: +# slightly funny for merging D1 and E4, where E4 is defined as: # Commit E4: Merge B & C, modifying 'a' and renaming to 'a2', and deleting 'a/' # in this case, we'll get a rename/rename(1to2) conflict because a~$UNIQUE # gets renamed to 'a' in D1 and to 'a2' in E4. But that's better than having diff --git a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh index d227e15944..bd0f17a3be 100755 --- a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh +++ b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh @@ -2260,24 +2260,23 @@ test_expect_success '8d: rename/delete...or not?' ' # Commit B: w/{b,c}, z/d # # Possible Resolutions: -# w/o dir-rename detection: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), -# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c) -# Currently expected: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), -# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c) -# Optimal: ?? +# if z not considered renamed: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), +# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c) +# if z->y rename considered: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), +# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c) +# Optimal: ?? # # Notes: In commit A, directory z got renamed to y. In commit B, directory z # did NOT get renamed; the directory is still present; instead it is # considered to have just renamed a subset of paths in directory z -# elsewhere. Therefore, the directory rename done in commit A to z/ -# applies to z/d and maps it to y/d. +# elsewhere. However, this is much like testcase 6b (where commit B +# moves all the original paths out of z/ but opted to keep d +# within z/). This makes it hard to judge where d should end up. # # It's possible that users would get confused about this, but what -# should we do instead? Silently leaving at z/d seems just as bad or -# maybe even worse. Perhaps we could print a big warning about z/d -# and how we're moving to y/d in this case, but when I started thinking -# about the ramifications of doing that, I didn't know how to rule out -# that opening other weird edge and corner cases so I just punted. +# should we do instead? It's not at all clear to me whether z/d or +# y/d or something else is a better resolution here, and other cases +# start getting really tricky, so I just picked one. test_setup_8e () { test_create_repo 8e && @@ -4405,7 +4404,7 @@ test_expect_success '13b(info): messages for transitive rename with conflicted c # Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/{d,e} # Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, x/e # Commit B: z/{b,c,d}, x/e -# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, with info or conflict messages for d ( +# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, x/e, with info or conflict messages for d # A: renamed x/d -> z/d; B: renamed z/ -> y/ AND renamed x/d to y/d # One could argue A had partial knowledge of what was done with # d and B had full knowledge, but that's a slippery slope as -- cgit v1.2.3