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.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.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 fe42cabad..d00786f71 100644
--- a/merge-recursive.c
+++ b/merge-recursive.c
@@ -1951,7 +1951,7 @@ 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);
@@ -2178,7 +2178,7 @@ 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 c684f34b6..99dca4ff0 100755
--- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -2070,18 +2070,23 @@ 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 &&
@@ -2114,32 +2119,32 @@ 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
)
'
@@ -2153,16 +2158,6 @@ 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.
@@ -2891,7 +2886,7 @@ 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 &&
@@ -3927,7 +3922,7 @@ 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 &&
--
2.14.2
