Hi Junio, On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "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. I disagree. It helps both development and porting to different branches to be able to cherry-pick the regression test individually. Please do not ask me to violate this hard-learned principle. > 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. That is why I put in a verbose commit message, so that you do not have to guess. And even the test title talks about this. Seriously, I am very much opposed to changing the patches in the direction you suggested. In my mind, they would make the story substantially worse. Thank you for your review, Dscho > > 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. >
