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,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v10 28/36] merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renames
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:58:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180419175823.7946-29-newren@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180419175823.7946-1-newren@gmail.com>

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>
---
 merge-recursive.c                   |  4 +--
 t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 55 +++++++++++++----------------
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
index 238711b038..27278d51bb 100644
--- a/merge-recursive.c
+++ b/merge-recursive.c
@@ -1992,7 +1992,7 @@ static void compute_collisions(struct hashmap *collisions,
 		char *new_path;
 		struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i];
 
-		if (pair->status == 'D')
+		if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R')
 			continue;
 		dir_rename_ent = check_dir_renamed(pair->two->path,
 						   dir_renames);
@@ -2219,7 +2219,7 @@ static struct string_list *get_renames(struct merge_options *o,
 		struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i];
 		char *new_path; /* non-NULL only with directory renames */
 
-		if (pair->status == 'D') {
+		if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R') {
 			diff_free_filepair(pair);
 			continue;
 		}
diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
index 5b84591445..45f620633f 100755
--- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -2078,18 +2078,23 @@ test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, w
 	)
 '
 
-# Testcase 8c, rename+modify/delete
-#   (Related to testcases 5b and 8d)
+# Testcase 8c, modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?
+#   (Related to testcases 5b, 8d, and 9h)
 #   Commit O: z/{b,c,d}
 #   Commit A: y/{b,c}
 #   Commit B: z/{b,c,d_modified,e}
-#   Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename+modify/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
+#   Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(modify/delete: on z/d)
 #
-#   Note: This testcase doesn't present any concerns for me...until you
-#         compare it with testcases 5b and 8d.  See notes in 8d for more
-#         details.
-
-test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' '
+#   Note: It could easily be argued that the correct resolution here is
+#         y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: z/d -> y/d vs deleted)
+#         and that the modifed version of d should be present in y/ after
+#         the merge, just marked as conflicted.  Indeed, I previously did
+#         argue that.  But applying directory renames to the side of
+#         history where a file is merely modified results in spurious
+#         rename/rename(1to2) conflicts -- see testcase 9h.  See also
+#         notes in 8d.
+
+test_expect_success '8c-setup: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?' '
 	test_create_repo 8c &&
 	(
 		cd 8c &&
@@ -2122,32 +2127,32 @@ test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' '
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' '
+test_expect_success '8c-check: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete' '
 	(
 		cd 8c &&
 
 		git checkout A^0 &&
 
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).* z/d.*y/d" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (modify/delete).* z/d" out &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >out &&
-		test_line_count = 4 out &&
+		test_line_count = 5 out &&
 		git ls-files -u >out &&
-		test_line_count = 1 out &&
+		test_line_count = 2 out &&
 		git ls-files -o >out &&
 		test_line_count = 1 out &&
 
 		git rev-parse >actual \
-			:0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :3:y/d &&
+			:0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :1:z/d :3:z/d &&
 		git rev-parse >expect \
-			 O:z/b  O:z/c  B:z/e  B:z/d &&
+			 O:z/b  O:z/c  B:z/e  O:z/d  B:z/d &&
 		test_cmp expect actual &&
 
-		test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d &&
-		test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:y/d &&
-		git ls-files -s y/d | grep ^100755 &&
-		test_path_is_file y/d
+		test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:z/d &&
+		git ls-files -s z/d | grep ^100755 &&
+		test_path_is_file z/d &&
+		test_path_is_missing y/d
 	)
 '
 
@@ -2161,16 +2166,6 @@ test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' '
 #
 #   Note: It would also be somewhat reasonable to resolve this as
 #             y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
-#   The logic being that the only difference between this testcase and 8c
-#   is that there is no modification to d.  That suggests that instead of a
-#   rename/modify vs. delete conflict, we should just have a rename/delete
-#   conflict, otherwise we are being inconsistent.
-#
-#   However...as far as consistency goes, we didn't report a conflict for
-#   path d_1 in testcase 5b due to a different file being in the way.  So,
-#   we seem to be forced to have cases where users can change things
-#   slightly and get what they may perceive as inconsistent results.  It
-#   would be nice to avoid that, but I'm not sure I see how.
 #
 #   In this case, I'm leaning towards: commit A was the one that deleted z/d
 #   and it did the rename of z to y, so the two "conflicts" (rename vs.
@@ -2915,7 +2910,7 @@ test_expect_success '9h-setup: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_failure '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
+test_expect_success '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
 	(
 		cd 9h &&
 
@@ -3959,7 +3954,7 @@ test_expect_success '12c-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ c
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_failure '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
+test_expect_success '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
 	(
 		cd 12c &&
 
-- 
2.17.0.290.ge988e9ce2a


  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-04-19 18:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-19 17:57 [PATCH v10 00/36] Add directory rename detection to git Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 01/36] directory rename detection: basic testcases Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 02/36] directory rename detection: directory splitting testcases Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 03/36] directory rename detection: testcases to avoid taking detection too far Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 04/36] directory rename detection: partially renamed directory testcase/discussion Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 05/36] directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renames Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 06/36] directory rename detection: testcases checking which side did the rename Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 07/36] directory rename detection: more involved edge/corner testcases Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 08/36] directory rename detection: testcases exploring possibly suboptimal merges Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 09/36] directory rename detection: miscellaneous testcases to complete coverage Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 10/36] directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting untracked files Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 11/36] directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting dirty files Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v10 12/36] merge-recursive: move the get_renames() function Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 13/36] merge-recursive: introduce new functions to handle rename logic Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 14/36] merge-recursive: fix leaks of allocated renames and diff_filepairs Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 15/36] merge-recursive: make !o->detect_rename codepath more obvious Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 16/36] merge-recursive: split out code for determining diff_filepairs Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 17/36] merge-recursive: make a helper function for cleanup for handle_renames Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 18/36] merge-recursive: add get_directory_renames() Elijah Newren
2018-05-06 23:41   ` SZEDER Gábor
2018-05-07 15:45     ` [PATCH] fixup! " Elijah Newren
2019-10-09 20:38   ` [PATCH v10 18/36] " Johannes Schindelin
2019-10-11 20:02     ` Elijah Newren
2019-10-12 19:23       ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 19/36] merge-recursive: check for directory level conflicts Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 20/36] merge-recursive: add computation of collisions due to dir rename & merging Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 21/36] merge-recursive: check for file level conflicts then get new name Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 22/36] merge-recursive: when comparing files, don't include trees Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 23/36] merge-recursive: apply necessary modifications for directory renames Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 24/36] merge-recursive: avoid clobbering untracked files with " Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 25/36] merge-recursive: fix overwriting dirty files involved in renames Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 20:48   ` Martin Ågren
2018-04-19 20:54     ` Martin Ågren
2018-04-19 21:06     ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 26/36] merge-recursive: fix remaining directory rename + dirty overwrite cases Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 27/36] directory rename detection: new testcases showcasing a pair of bugs Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` Elijah Newren [this message]
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 29/36] merge-recursive: improve add_cacheinfo error handling Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 30/36] merge-recursive: move more is_dirty handling to merge_content Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 31/36] merge-recursive: avoid triggering add_cacheinfo error with dirty mod Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 32/36] t6046: testcases checking whether updates can be skipped in a merge Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 20:26   ` SZEDER Gábor
2018-04-19 20:55     ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 33/36] merge-recursive: fix was_tracked() to quit lying with some renamed paths Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 20:39   ` Martin Ågren
2018-04-19 20:54     ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-20 12:23   ` SZEDER Gábor
2018-04-20 15:23     ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-21 19:37     ` [RFC PATCH v10 32.5/36] unpack_trees: fix memory corruption with split_index when src != dst Elijah Newren
2018-04-21 20:13       ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-22 12:38       ` Duy Nguyen
2018-04-23 17:09         ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-23 17:37           ` Duy Nguyen
2018-04-23 18:05             ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-24  0:24               ` [PATCH v2] unpack_trees: fix breakage when o->src_index != o->dst_index Elijah Newren
2018-04-24  1:51                 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-04-24  3:05                 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-04-24  6:50                   ` [PATCH v3] " Elijah Newren
2018-04-29 18:05                     ` Duy Nguyen
2018-04-29 20:53                       ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-04-30 14:42                         ` Duy Nguyen
2018-04-30 14:45                           ` Duy Nguyen
2018-04-30 16:19                             ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-30 16:29                               ` Duy Nguyen
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 34/36] merge-recursive: fix remainder of was_dirty() to use original index Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 35/36] merge-recursive: make "Auto-merging" comment show for other merges Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 17:58 ` [PATCH v10 36/36] merge-recursive: fix check for skipability of working tree updates Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 18:35 ` [PATCH v10 00/36] Add directory rename detection to git Elijah Newren
2018-04-19 18:41   ` Stefan Beller
2018-04-19 19:54     ` Derrick Stolee
2018-04-19 20:22   ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-20  3:05   ` Junio C Hamano
2018-04-23 17:50     ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-24 20:20     ` [PATCH v10 1/2] fixup! merge-recursive: fix was_tracked() to quit lying with some renamed paths Elijah Newren
2018-04-24 20:21       ` [PATCH v10 2/2] fixup! t6046: testcases checking whether updates can be skipped in a merge Elijah Newren
2018-04-23 17:28 ` [PATCH v10 00/36] Add directory rename detection to git Elijah Newren
2018-04-23 23:46   ` Junio C Hamano
2018-04-24  0:15     ` Elijah Newren

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=20180419175823.7946-29-newren@gmail.com \
    --to=newren@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=sbeller@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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).