Merge: "git rm bla": "bla: needs merge", but still removes file "bla"

Merge: "git rm bla": "bla: needs merge", but still removes file "bla"

[Ulrich Windl]

Hi!

I just had "an interesting case" for a merge with conflicts:
The merge re-introduced a file that had been renamed (say old one is "bla", and the new one is "foo").
After merging the changes from bla into foo, I added foo, trying to remove bla:
> git add foo
> git rm bla
bla: needs merge
rm 'bla'

The interesting part is that the file was still removed, while claiming "needs merge" before:
> git rm bla
fatal: pathspec 'bla' did not match any files

(git-2.12.3-27.14.1.x86_64 from SLES12 SP4)

Regards,
Ulrich

Re: Merge: "git rm bla": "bla: needs merge", but still removes file "bla"

[Junio C Hamano]

"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> writes:

> I just had "an interesting case" for a merge with conflicts:
> The merge re-introduced a file that had been renamed (say old one is "bla", and the new one is "foo").
> After merging the changes from bla into foo, I added foo, trying to remove bla:
>> git add foo
>> git rm bla
> bla: needs merge
> rm 'bla'

Yeah, I think I've known about this for a long time.  We have an
internal call to "update-index --refresh" before starting to remove,
because we need to know which path is up-to-date wrt the index, and
the machinery for refreshing the index by default gives the "needs
merge" message.  We never bothered to squelch it.

Perhaps this one-liner would be a sufficient fix.



 builtin/rm.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/builtin/rm.c b/builtin/rm.c
index 2eacda42b4..19ce95a901 100644
--- a/builtin/rm.c
+++ b/builtin/rm.c
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	parse_pathspec(&pathspec, 0,
 		       PATHSPEC_PREFER_CWD,
 		       prefix, argv);
-	refresh_index(&the_index, REFRESH_QUIET, &pathspec, NULL, NULL);
+	refresh_index(&the_index, REFRESH_QUIET|REFRESH_UNMERGED, &pathspec, NULL, NULL);
 
 	seen = xcalloc(pathspec.nr, 1);
 

[PATCH] rm: resolving by removal is not a warning-worthy event

[Junio C Hamano]

When resolving a conflict on a path in favor of removing it, using
"git rm" on it is the standard way to do so.  The user however is
greeted with a "needs merge" message during that operation:

	$ git merge side-branch
	$ edit conflicted-path-1
	$ git add conflicted-path-1
	$ git rm conflicted-path-2
	conflicted-path-2: needs merge
	rm 'conflicted-path-2'

The removal by "git rm" does get performed, but an uninitiated user
may find it confusing, "needs merge? so I need to resolve conflict
before being able to remove it???"

The message is coming from "update-index --refresh" that is called
internally to make sure "git rm" knows which paths are clean and
which paths are dirty, in order to prevent removal of paths modified
relative to the index without the "-f" option.  We somehow ended up
not squelching this message which seeped through to the UI surface.

Use the same mechanism used by "git commit", "git describe", etc. to
squelch the message.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 builtin/rm.c  |  2 +-
 t/t3600-rm.sh | 13 +++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/builtin/rm.c b/builtin/rm.c
index 65b448ef8e..b63c86ae92 100644
--- a/builtin/rm.c
+++ b/builtin/rm.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	parse_pathspec(&pathspec, 0,
 		       PATHSPEC_PREFER_CWD,
 		       prefix, argv);
-	refresh_index(&the_index, REFRESH_QUIET, &pathspec, NULL, NULL);
+	refresh_index(&the_index, REFRESH_QUIET|REFRESH_UNMERGED, &pathspec, NULL, NULL);
 
 	seen = xcalloc(pathspec.nr, 1);
 
diff --git a/t/t3600-rm.sh b/t/t3600-rm.sh
index b8fbdefcdc..5aae78ccc4 100755
--- a/t/t3600-rm.sh
+++ b/t/t3600-rm.sh
@@ -251,6 +251,19 @@ test_expect_success 'choking "git rm" should not let it die with cruft' '
 	test_path_is_missing .git/index.lock
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'Resolving by removal is not a warning-worthy event' '
+	git reset -q --hard &&
+	test_when_finished "rm -f .git/index.lock msg && git reset -q --hard" &&
+	qfwfq=$(echo qfwfq | git hash-object -w --stdin) &&
+	for stage in 1 2 3
+	do
+		echo "100644 $qfwfq $stage	qfwfq"
+	done | git update-index --index-info &&
+	git rm qfwfq >msg &&
+	test_i18ngrep ! "needs merge" msg &&
+	test_must_fail git ls-files -s --error-unmatch qfwfq
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'rm removes subdirectories recursively' '
 	mkdir -p dir/subdir/subsubdir &&
 	echo content >dir/subdir/subsubdir/file &&
-- 
2.22.0-653-g37fc7794bc

Re: [PATCH] rm: resolving by removal is not a warning-worthy event

[Jeff King]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:38:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> When resolving a conflict on a path in favor of removing it, using
> "git rm" on it is the standard way to do so.  The user however is
> greeted with a "needs merge" message during that operation:
> 
> 	$ git merge side-branch
> 	$ edit conflicted-path-1
> 	$ git add conflicted-path-1
> 	$ git rm conflicted-path-2
> 	conflicted-path-2: needs merge
> 	rm 'conflicted-path-2'
> 
> The removal by "git rm" does get performed, but an uninitiated user
> may find it confusing, "needs merge? so I need to resolve conflict
> before being able to remove it???"
> 
> The message is coming from "update-index --refresh" that is called
> internally to make sure "git rm" knows which paths are clean and
> which paths are dirty, in order to prevent removal of paths modified
> relative to the index without the "-f" option.  We somehow ended up
> not squelching this message which seeped through to the UI surface.
> 
> Use the same mechanism used by "git commit", "git describe", etc. to
> squelch the message.

Nicely explained, and the patch makes sense.

> +test_expect_success 'Resolving by removal is not a warning-worthy event' '
> +	git reset -q --hard &&
> +	test_when_finished "rm -f .git/index.lock msg && git reset -q --hard" &&
> +	qfwfq=$(echo qfwfq | git hash-object -w --stdin) &&

I'd have called this "$blob" for my own sanity in typing later lines,
but OK. :)

> +	do
> +		echo "100644 $qfwfq $stage	qfwfq"
> +	done | git update-index --index-info &&
> +	git rm qfwfq >msg &&
> +	test_i18ngrep ! "needs merge" msg &&

Should we capture stderr from "git rm", too, to cover all bases?

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] rm: resolving by removal is not a warning-worthy event

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>> +test_expect_success 'Resolving by removal is not a warning-worthy event' '
>> +	git reset -q --hard &&
>> +	test_when_finished "rm -f .git/index.lock msg && git reset -q --hard" &&
>> +	qfwfq=$(echo qfwfq | git hash-object -w --stdin) &&
>
> I'd have called this "$blob" for my own sanity in typing later lines,
> but OK. :)

OK, I can change that easily ;-)

>> +	do
>> +		echo "100644 $qfwfq $stage	qfwfq"
>> +	done | git update-index --index-info &&
>> +	git rm qfwfq >msg &&
>> +	test_i18ngrep ! "needs merge" msg &&
>
> Should we capture stderr from "git rm", too, to cover all bases?

Do you mean

	git rm blob >msg 2>&1

because we could later change our mind and send "needs merge"
message to the standard error stream?

Re: [PATCH] rm: resolving by removal is not a warning-worthy event

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 02:07:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> >> +	git rm qfwfq >msg &&
> >> +	test_i18ngrep ! "needs merge" msg &&
> >
> > Should we capture stderr from "git rm", too, to cover all bases?
> 
> Do you mean
> 
> 	git rm blob >msg 2>&1
> 
> because we could later change our mind and send "needs merge"
> message to the standard error stream?

Yes, exactly.

-Peff