"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgad...@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> > > When calling `merge` on a branch that has already been merged, that > `merge` is skipped quietly, but currently a MERGE_HEAD file is being > left behind and will then be grabbed by the next `pick` (that did > not want to create a *merge* commit). > > Demonstrate this. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> > --- > t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) For a trivially small change/fix like this, it is OK and even preferrable to make 1+2 a single step, as applying t/ part only to try to see the breakage (or "am"ing everything and then "diff | apply -R" the part outside t/ for the same purpose) is easy enough. Because the patch 2 with your method ends up showing only the test set-up part in the context by changing _failure to _success, without showing what end-user visible breakage the step fixed, which usually comes near the end of the added test piece. A single patch that gives tests that ought to succeed would not force the readers to switch between patches 1 and 2 while reading the fix. Of course, the above would not apply for a more involved case where the actual fix to the code needs to span multiple patches. Thanks. > diff --git a/t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh b/t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh > index aa7bfc88ec..1f08a33687 100755 > --- a/t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh > +++ b/t/t3430-rebase-merges.sh > @@ -396,4 +396,20 @@ test_expect_success 'with --autosquash and --exec' ' > grep "G: +G" actual > ' > > +test_expect_failure '--continue after resolving conflicts after a merge' ' > + git checkout -b already-has-g E && > + git cherry-pick E..G && > + test_commit H2 && > + > + git checkout -b conflicts-in-merge H && > + test_commit H2 H2.t conflicts H2-conflict && > + test_must_fail git rebase -r already-has-g && > + grep conflicts H2.t && Is this making sure that the above test_must_fail succeeded because of a conflict and not due to any other failure? I would have used "ls-files -u H2.t" to see if the index is unmerged, which probably is a more direct way to test what this is trying to test, but if we are in the conflicted state, the one side of << == >> has this string (the other has "H2" in it, presumably?), so in practice this should be good enough. > + echo resolved >H2.t && > + git add -u && and we resolve to continue. > + git rebase --continue && > + test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify HEAD^2 && Even if we made an octopus by mistake, the above will catch it, which is good. > + test_path_is_missing .git/MERGE_HEAD > +' > + > test_done And from the proposed log message, I am reading that the last two things (i.e. resulting tip is a child with a single parent and there is no leftover MERGE_HEAD file) fail without the fix. This is enough material to convince me or anybody that the bug is worth fixing. Thanks for being careful noticing a glitch during your real (and otherwise unrelated to the bug) work and following through.
