git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: sbeller@google.com, gitster@pobox.com, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 09/34] directory rename detection: testcases checking which side did the rename
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:42:12 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171129014237.32570-10-newren@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171129014237.32570-1-newren@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
---
 t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 321 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 321 insertions(+)

diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
index 29b2af7f19..5db2986de8 100755
--- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -1138,4 +1138,325 @@ test_expect_failure '5d-check: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory ren
 #   back to old handling.  But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b.
 ###########################################################################
 
+
+###########################################################################
+# SECTION 6: Same side of the merge was the one that did the rename
+#
+# It may sound obvious that you only want to apply implicit directory
+# renames to directories if the _other_ side of history did the renaming.
+# If you did make an implementation that didn't explicitly enforce this
+# rule, the majority of cases that would fall under this section would
+# also be solved by following the rules from the above sections.  But
+# there are still a few that stick out, so this section covers them just
+# to make sure we also get them right.
+###########################################################################
+
+# Testcase 6a, Tricky rename/delete
+#   Commit O: z/{b,c,d}
+#   Commit A: z/b
+#   Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d
+#   Expected: y/b, CONFLICT(rename/delete, z/c -> y/c vs. NULL)
+#   Note: We're just checking here that the rename of z/b and z/c to put
+#         them under y/ doesn't accidentally catch z/d and make it look like
+#         it is also involved in a rename/delete conflict.
+
+test_expect_success '6a-setup: Tricky rename/delete' '
+	test_create_repo 6a &&
+	(
+		cd 6a &&
+
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo b >z/b &&
+		echo c >z/c &&
+		echo d >z/d &&
+		git add z &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "O" &&
+
+		git branch O &&
+		git branch A &&
+		git branch B &&
+
+		git checkout A &&
+		git rm z/c &&
+		git rm z/d &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "A" &&
+
+		git checkout B &&
+		mkdir y &&
+		git mv z/b y/ &&
+		git mv z/c y/ &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "B"
+	)
+'
+
+test_expect_success '6a-check: Tricky rename/delete' '
+	(
+		cd 6a &&
+
+		git checkout A^0 &&
+
+		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*z/c.*y/c" out &&
+
+		test 2 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+		test 1 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
+		test 1 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) &&
+
+		git rev-parse >actual \
+			:0:y/b :3:y/c &&
+		git rev-parse >expect \
+			O:z/b O:z/c &&
+		test_cmp expect actual
+	)
+'
+
+# Testcase 6b, Same rename done on both sides
+#   (Related to testcases 6c and 8e)
+#   Commit O: z/{b,c}
+#   Commit A: y/{b,c}
+#   Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d
+#   Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d
+#   Note: If we did directory rename detection here, we'd move z/d into y/,
+#         but B did that rename and still decided to put the file into z/,
+#         so we probably shouldn't apply directory rename detection for it.
+
+test_expect_success '6b-setup: Same rename done on both sides' '
+	test_create_repo 6b &&
+	(
+		cd 6b &&
+
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo b >z/b &&
+		echo c >z/c &&
+		git add z &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "O" &&
+
+		git branch O &&
+		git branch A &&
+		git branch B &&
+
+		git checkout A &&
+		git mv z y &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "A" &&
+
+		git checkout B &&
+		git mv z y &&
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo d >z/d &&
+		git add z/d &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "B"
+	)
+'
+
+test_expect_success '6b-check: Same rename done on both sides' '
+	(
+		cd 6b &&
+
+		git checkout A^0 &&
+
+		git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+		test 3 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) &&
+
+		git rev-parse >actual \
+			HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:z/d &&
+		git rev-parse >expect \
+			O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d &&
+		test_cmp expect actual
+	)
+'
+
+# Testcase 6c, Rename only done on same side
+#   (Related to testcases 6b and 8e)
+#   Commit O: z/{b,c}
+#   Commit A: z/{b,c} (no change)
+#   Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d
+#   Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d
+#   NOTE: Seems obvious, but just checking that the implementation doesn't
+#         "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.
+
+test_expect_success '6c-setup: Rename only done on same side' '
+	test_create_repo 6c &&
+	(
+		cd 6c &&
+
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo b >z/b &&
+		echo c >z/c &&
+		git add z &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "O" &&
+
+		git branch O &&
+		git branch A &&
+		git branch B &&
+
+		git checkout A &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit --allow-empty -m "A" &&
+
+		git checkout B &&
+		git mv z y &&
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo d >z/d &&
+		git add z/d &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "B"
+	)
+'
+
+test_expect_success '6c-check: Rename only done on same side' '
+	(
+		cd 6c &&
+
+		git checkout A^0 &&
+
+		git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+		test 3 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) &&
+
+		git rev-parse >actual \
+			HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:z/d &&
+		git rev-parse >expect \
+			O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d &&
+		test_cmp expect actual
+	)
+'
+
+# Testcase 6d, We don't always want transitive renaming
+#   (Related to testcase 1c)
+#   Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d
+#   Commit A: z/{b,c}, x/d (no change)
+#   Commit B: y/{b,c}, z/d
+#   Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d
+#   NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation
+#         doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.
+
+test_expect_success '6d-setup: We do not always want transitive renaming' '
+	test_create_repo 6d &&
+	(
+		cd 6d &&
+
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo b >z/b &&
+		echo c >z/c &&
+		mkdir x &&
+		echo d >x/d &&
+		git add z x &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "O" &&
+
+		git branch O &&
+		git branch A &&
+		git branch B &&
+
+		git checkout A &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit --allow-empty -m "A" &&
+
+		git checkout B &&
+		git mv z y &&
+		git mv x z &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "B"
+	)
+'
+
+test_expect_success '6d-check: We do not always want transitive renaming' '
+	(
+		cd 6d &&
+
+		git checkout A^0 &&
+
+		git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+		test 3 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) &&
+
+		git rev-parse >actual \
+			HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:z/d &&
+		git rev-parse >expect \
+			O:z/b O:z/c O:x/d &&
+		test_cmp expect actual
+	)
+'
+
+# Testcase 6e, Add/add from one-side
+#   Commit O: z/{b,c}
+#   Commit A: z/{b,c} (no change)
+#   Commit B: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2
+#   Expected: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2
+#   NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation
+#         doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c} +
+#         add/add conflict on y/d_1 vs y/d_2.
+
+test_expect_success '6e-setup: Add/add from one side' '
+	test_create_repo 6e &&
+	(
+		cd 6e &&
+
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo b >z/b &&
+		echo c >z/c &&
+		git add z &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "O" &&
+
+		git branch O &&
+		git branch A &&
+		git branch B &&
+
+		git checkout A &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit --allow-empty -m "A" &&
+
+		git checkout B &&
+		git mv z y &&
+		echo d1 > y/d &&
+		mkdir z &&
+		echo d2 > z/d &&
+		git add y/d z/d &&
+		test_tick &&
+		git commit -m "B"
+	)
+'
+
+test_expect_success '6e-check: Add/add from one side' '
+	(
+		cd 6e &&
+
+		git checkout A^0 &&
+
+		git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+		test 4 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
+		test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) &&
+
+		git rev-parse >actual \
+			HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:z/d &&
+		git rev-parse >expect \
+			O:z/b O:z/c B:y/d B:z/d &&
+		test_cmp expect actual
+	)
+'
+
+###########################################################################
+# Rules suggested by section 6:
+#
+#   Only apply implicit directory renames to directories if the other
+#   side of history is the one doing the renaming.
+###########################################################################
+
 test_done
-- 
2.15.0.408.g850bc54b15


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-11-29  1:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-29  1:42 [PATCH v4 00/34] Add directory rename detection to git Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 01/34] Tighten and correct a few testcases for merging and cherry-picking Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 02/34] merge-recursive: fix logic ordering issue Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 03/34] merge-recursive: add explanation for src_entry and dst_entry Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 04/34] directory rename detection: basic testcases Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 05/34] directory rename detection: directory splitting testcases Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 06/34] directory rename detection: testcases to avoid taking detection too far Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 07/34] directory rename detection: partially renamed directory testcase/discussion Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 08/34] directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renames Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` Elijah Newren [this message]
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 10/34] directory rename detection: more involved edge/corner testcases Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 11/34] directory rename detection: testcases exploring possibly suboptimal merges Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 12/34] directory rename detection: miscellaneous testcases to complete coverage Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 13/34] directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting untracked files Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 14/34] directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting dirty files Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 15/34] merge-recursive: move the get_renames() function Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 16/34] merge-recursive: introduce new functions to handle rename logic Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 17/34] merge-recursive: fix leaks of allocated renames and diff_filepairs Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 18/34] merge-recursive: make !o->detect_rename codepath more obvious Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 19/34] merge-recursive: split out code for determining diff_filepairs Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 20/34] merge-recursive: add a new hashmap for storing directory renames Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 21/34] merge-recursive: make a helper function for cleanup for handle_renames Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 22/34] merge-recursive: add get_directory_renames() Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 23/34] merge-recursive: check for directory level conflicts Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 24/34] merge-recursive: add a new hashmap for storing file collisions Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 25/34] merge-recursive: add computation of collisions due to dir rename & merging Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 26/34] merge-recursive: check for file level conflicts then get new name Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 27/34] merge-recursive: when comparing files, don't include trees Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 28/34] merge-recursive: apply necessary modifications for directory renames Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 29/34] merge-recursive: avoid clobbering untracked files with " Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 30/34] merge-recursive: fix overwriting dirty files involved in renames Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 31/34] merge-recursive: fix remaining directory rename + dirty overwrite cases Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 32/34] directory rename detection: new testcases showcasing a pair of bugs Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 33/34] merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renames Elijah Newren
2017-11-29  1:42 ` [PATCH v4 34/34] merge-recursive: ensure we write updates for directory-renamed file Elijah Newren
2017-12-13  1:06 ` [PATCH v4 00/34] Add directory rename detection to git Junio C Hamano
2017-12-13  2:01   ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-13 15:38     ` Elijah Newren
2017-12-13 18:15   ` Ramsay Jones
2017-12-13 19:05     ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171129014237.32570-10-newren@gmail.com \
    --to=newren@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=sbeller@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).