Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com>
---
t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 371 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 371 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
index 115d0d2622..bdfd943c88 100755
--- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -1683,4 +1683,375 @@ test_expect_failure '7e-check: transitive rename in
rename/delete AND dirs in th
test $(git hash-object y/d~C^0) = $(git rev-parse A:x/d)
'
+
+###########################################################################
+# SECTION 8: Suboptimal merges
+#
+# As alluded to in the last section, the ruleset we have built up for
+# detecting directory renames unfortunately has some special cases where it
+# results in slightly suboptimal or non-intuitive behavior. This section
+# explores these cases.
+#
+# To be fair, we already had non-intuitive or suboptimal behavior for most
+# of these cases in git before introducing implicit directory rename
+# detection, but it'd be nice if there was a modified ruleset out there
+# that handled these cases a bit better.
+###########################################################################
+
+# Testcase 8a, Dual-directory rename, one into the others' way
+# Commit A. x/{a,b}, y/{c,d}
+# Commit B. x/{a,b,e}, y/{c,d,f}
+# Commit C. y/{a,b}, z/{c,d}
+#
+# Possible Resolutions:
+# Previous git: y/{a,b,f}, z/{c,d}, x/e
+# Expected: y/{a,b,e,f}, z/{c,d}
+# Preferred: y/{a,b,e}, z/{c,d,f}
+#
+# Note: Both x and y got renamed and it'd be nice to detect both, and we do
+# better with directory rename detection than git did previously, but the
+# simple rule from section 5 prevents me from handling this as optimally as
+# we potentially could.
+
+test_expect_success '8a-setup: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way'
'
+ git rm -rf . &&
+ git clean -fdqx &&
+ rm -rf .git &&
+ git init &&
+
+ mkdir x &&
+ mkdir y &&
+ echo a >x/a &&
+ echo b >x/b &&
+ echo c >y/c &&
+ echo d >y/d &&
+ git add x y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+ git branch C &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ echo e >x/e &&
+ echo f >y/f &&
+ git add x/e y/f &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B" &&
+
+ git checkout C &&
+ git mv y z &&
+ git mv x y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "C"
+'
+
+test_expect_failure '8a-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way'
'
+ git checkout B^0 &&
+
+ git merge -s recursive C^0 &&
+
+ test 6 -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) &&
+
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/a) = $(git rev-parse A:x/a) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/b) = $(git rev-parse A:x/b) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/e) = $(git rev-parse B:x/e) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/f) = $(git rev-parse B:y/f) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:z/c) = $(git rev-parse A:y/c) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:z/d) = $(git rev-parse A:y/d)
+'
+
+# Testcase 8b, Dual-directory rename, one into the others' way, with
conflicting filenames
+# Commit A. x/{a_1,b_1}, y/{a_2,b_2}
+# Commit B. x/{a_1,b_1,e_1}, y/{a_2,b_2,e_2}
+# Commit C. y/{a_1,b_1}, z/{a_2,b_2}
+#
+# Possible Resolutions:
+# Previous git: y/{a_1,b_1,e_2}, z/{a_2,b_2}, x/e_1
+# Scary: y/{a_1,b_1}, z/{a_2,b_2}, CONFLICT(add/add, e_1 vs. e_2)
+# Preferred: y/{a_1,b_1,e_1}, z/{a_2,b_2,e_2}
+#
+# Note: Very similar to 8a, except instead of 'e' and 'f' in directories x and
+# y, both are named 'e'. Without directory rename detection, neither file
+# moves directories. Implment directory rename detection suboptimally, and
+# you get an add/add conflict, but both files were added in commit B, so this
+# is an add/add conflict where one side of history added both files --
+# something we can't represent in the index. Obviously, we'd prefer the last
+# resolution, but our previous rules are too coarse to allow it. Using both
+# the rules from section 4 and section 5 save us from the Scary resolution,
+# making us fall back to pre-directory-rename-detection behavior for both
+# e_1 and e_2.
+
+test_expect_success '8b-setup: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way,
with conflicting filenames' '
+ git rm -rf . &&
+ git clean -fdqx &&
+ rm -rf .git &&
+ git init &&
+
+ mkdir x &&
+ mkdir y &&
+ echo a1 >x/a &&
+ echo b1 >x/b &&
+ echo a2 >y/a &&
+ echo b2 >y/b &&
+ git add x y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+ git branch C &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ echo e1 >x/e &&
+ echo e2 >y/e &&
+ git add x/e y/e &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B" &&
+
+ git checkout C &&
+ git mv y z &&
+ git mv x y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "C"
+'
+
+test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way,
with conflicting filenames' '
+ git checkout B^0 &&
+
+ git merge -s recursive C^0 &&
+
+ test 6 -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) &&
+
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/a) = $(git rev-parse A:x/a) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/b) = $(git rev-parse A:x/b) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:z/a) = $(git rev-parse A:y/a) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:z/b) = $(git rev-parse A:y/b) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:x/e) = $(git rev-parse B:x/e) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/e) = $(git rev-parse B:y/e)
+'
+
+# Testcase 8c, rename+modify/delete
+# (Related to testcases 5b and 8d)
+# Commit A: z/{b,c,d}
+# Commit B: y/{b,c}
+# Commit C: z/{b,c,d_modified,e}
+# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename+modify/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
+#
+# 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' '
+ git rm -rf . &&
+ git clean -fdqx &&
+ rm -rf .git &&
+ git init &&
+
+ mkdir z &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ test_seq 1 10 >z/d &&
+ git add z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+ git branch C &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ git rm z/d &&
+ git mv z y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B" &&
+
+ git checkout C &&
+ echo 11 >z/d &&
+ test_chmod +x z/d &&
+ echo e >z/e &&
+ git add z/d z/e &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "C"
+'
+
+test_expect_failure '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' '
+ git checkout B^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git merge -s recursive C^0 >out &&
+ test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).* z/d.*y/d" out &&
+
+ test 4 -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) &&
+
+ test $(git rev-parse :0:y/b) = $(git rev-parse A:z/b) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse :0:y/c) = $(git rev-parse A:z/c) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse :0:y/e) = $(git rev-parse C:z/e) &&
+
+ test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d &&
+ test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:y/d &&
+ test $(git rev-parse :3:y/d) = $(git rev-parse C:z/d) &&
+ git ls-files -s y/d | grep ^100755 &&
+ test -f y/d
+'
+
+# Testcase 8d, rename/delete...or not?
+# (Related to testcase 5b; these may appear slightly inconsistent to users;
+# Also related to testcases 7d and 7e)
+# Commit A: z/{b,c,d}
+# Commit B: y/{b,c}
+# Commit C: z/{b,c,d,e}
+# Expected: y/{b,c,e}
+#
+# 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 B was the one that deleted z/d
+# and it did the rename of z to y, so the two "conflicts" (rename vs.
+# delete) are both coming from commit B, which is non-sensical. Conflicts
+# during merging are supposed to be about opposite sides doing things
+# differently.
+
+test_expect_success '8d-setup: rename/delete...or not?' '
+ git rm -rf . &&
+ git clean -fdqx &&
+ rm -rf .git &&
+ git init &&
+
+ mkdir z &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ test_seq 1 10 >z/d &&
+ git add z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+ git branch C &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ git rm z/d &&
+ git mv z y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B" &&
+
+ git checkout C &&
+ echo e >z/e &&
+ git add z/e &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "C"
+'
+
+test_expect_failure '8d-check: rename/delete...or not?' '
+ git checkout B^0 &&
+
+ git merge -s recursive C^0 &&
+
+ test 3 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/b) = $(git rev-parse A:z/b) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/c) = $(git rev-parse A:z/c) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse HEAD:y/e) = $(git rev-parse C:z/e)
+'
+
+# Testcase 8e, Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory
+# Commit A: z/{b,c}
+# Commit B: y/{b,c}
+# Commit C: w/{b,c}, z/d
+#
+# Possible Resolutions:
+# Previous git: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs.
w/c)
+# Expected: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs.
w/c)
+# Preferred: ??
+#
+# Notes: In commit B, directory z got renamed to y. In commit C, 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 B to z/
+# applies to z/d and maps it to y/d.
+#
+# 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
+# abouty 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.
+
+test_expect_success '8e-setup: Both sides rename, one side adds to original
directory' '
+ git rm -rf . &&
+ git clean -fdqx &&
+ rm -rf .git &&
+ git init &&
+
+ mkdir z &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ git add z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+ git branch C &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ git mv z y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B" &&
+
+ git checkout C &&
+ git mv z w &&
+ mkdir z &&
+ echo d >z/d &&
+ git add z/d &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "C"
+'
+
+test_expect_failure '8e-check: Both sides rename, one side adds to original
directory' '
+ git checkout B^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git merge -s recursive C^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test 7 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) &&
+ test 6 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) &&
+ test 2 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) &&
+
+ test $(git rev-parse :0:y/d) = $(git rev-parse C:z/d) &&
+
+ test $(git rev-parse :1:z/b) = $(git rev-parse A:z/b) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse :2:y/b) = $(git rev-parse A:z/b) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse :3:w/b) = $(git rev-parse A:z/b) &&
+ test ! -f z/b &&
+ test $(git hash-object y/b) = $(git rev-parse A:z/b) &&
+ test $(git hash-object w/b) = $(git rev-parse A:z/b) &&
+
+ test $(git rev-parse :1:z/c) = $(git rev-parse A:z/c) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse :2:y/c) = $(git rev-parse A:z/c) &&
+ test $(git rev-parse :3:w/c) = $(git rev-parse A:z/c) &&
+ test ! -f z/c &&
+ test $(git hash-object y/c) = $(git rev-parse A:z/c) &&
+ test $(git hash-object w/c) = $(git rev-parse A:z/c) &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/c.*y/c.*w/c out &&
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/b.*y/b.*w/b out
+'
+
test_done
--
2.15.0.5.g9567be9905
