From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5E11F428 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 20:28:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752777AbeAEU2k (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:28:40 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:37973 "EHLO mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752627AbeAEU21 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:28:27 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f194.google.com with SMTP id 87so6978129ior.5 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:28:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; bh=s1WAEU5ak+psmtIjKdXWfeYfGkxBCDgXDtRk4elRp4E=; b=mG4cJd6WOEsuNzS4/5XxB+TIFEn+3xsd/qpOCYDO5me0mbdAH5/toHeNY1ZV3YU1bU h61Cj0A55ffBmFNJecvSK2A+7s5NzviABWNSqDyL6L+0MWshK9qK32BsejNdS21xX6tG wOSA8n0OY44AEG7b9NelJwon3141ti2/EH+v7EDU+ZAoNQemUlzwi7kn9xXt0TNgFy+J pNOph8R2ZomCx1zMOmEguBuroPEdrHxrs8ck/rFjDJ4n4xE1Ttfy9tAtDtQgHSbgl3ht 77NCQLlwfm1Ljiwm6Y5eqoSI/3S9ou0C7FMuvy2cXPisMRDj9VfgxP4etpEeR4DPxBiP IqYw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=s1WAEU5ak+psmtIjKdXWfeYfGkxBCDgXDtRk4elRp4E=; b=B7pN+8rSPYcMCXsHjg8VAeKHSZmf1JngPZhvoCP+iN4XSNu6yCMcsMTFSbOMVSUXWW HA8vV7XJQzRuSSG+poLpi36OS0cHQei//F1cN/DIT9xb9YHXy3sANMNFN2O1E4G6n0wp 5plfZ22sXZf/xyxm82IRw0imXZNoB7w61/xz61q7S9ycLY3DdIf0LCHeXAeRcRxqKp1V q77QKMLW1ddU/PsLRyBpXrbP/d96djMnbn2Y0byoiHfQizk970lFjncEXIMD2cf6JHb/ wpnGroxz2ZQywyUfZhm7O8WZ/I8pwqsnANuXuOE/OYph4frG0yMg0A8Cr/ywozODYAz0 tIzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLjZ00Bjf8DVpdJAwIl9yb0J9Qc6jfqDoGINRS2WoQdDfD4694G b389mOCP9P7cwcvk/Hx66z/T1ZLP X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBottRkXwKGvTRiPF/0VBWRHWBcA/xB9LTwZgTwNaoL3KXBRSvW5wc73MM8qEd0OaCRdgSAW6uw== X-Received: by 10.107.167.78 with SMTP id q75mr4252212ioe.285.1515184106076; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:28:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-20-122-173.hsd1.ut.comcast.net. [73.20.122.173]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6sm3739659iow.55.2018.01.05.12.28.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:28:25 -0800 (PST) From: Elijah Newren To: git@vger.kernel.org Cc: sbeller@google.com, szeder.dev@gmail.com, j6t@kdbg.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, peff@peff.net, git@matthieu-moy.fr, Elijah Newren Subject: [PATCHv6 05/31] directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renames Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:26:45 -0800 Message-Id: <20180105202711.24311-6-newren@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.15.0.409.g72e1e5805 In-Reply-To: <20180105202711.24311-1-newren@gmail.com> References: <20180105202711.24311-1-newren@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren --- t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 330 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 330 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh index c61ecb9b7..f9d75c83c 100755 --- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh +++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh @@ -842,4 +842,334 @@ test_expect_success '4a-check: Directory split, with original directory still pr # detection.) But, sadly, see testcase 8b. ########################################################################### + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 5: Files/directories in the way of subset of to-be-renamed paths +# +# Implicitly renaming files due to a detected directory rename could run +# into problems if there are files or directories in the way of the paths +# we want to rename. Explore such cases in this section. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 5a, Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, y/d +# Commit A: z/{b,c,e_1,f}, y/{d,e_2} +# Commit B: y/{b,c,d} +# Expected: z/e_1, y/{b,c,d,e_2,f} + CONFLICT warning +# NOTE: While directory rename detection is active here causing z/f to +# become y/f, we did not apply this for z/e_1 because that would +# give us an add/add conflict for y/e_1 vs y/e_2. This problem with +# this add/add, is that both versions of y/e are from the same side +# of history, giving us no way to represent this conflict in the +# index. + +test_expect_success '5a-setup: Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target' ' + test_create_repo 5a && + ( + cd 5a && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir y && + echo d >y/d && + git add z y && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + echo e1 >z/e && + echo f >z/f && + echo e2 >y/e && + git add z/e z/f y/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv z/b y/ && + git mv z/c y/ && + rmdir z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_failure '5a-check: Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target' ' + ( + cd 5a && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT.*implicit dir rename" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 0 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/d :0:y/e :0:z/e :0:y/f && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c O:y/d A:y/e A:z/e A:z/f && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +# Testcase 5b, Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict +# (Related to testcase 8d; these may appear slightly inconsistent to users; +# Also related to testcases 7d and 7e) +# Commit O: z/{b,c,d_1} +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d_2} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1,e}, y/d_3 +# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(add/add: y/d_2 vs. y/d_3) +# NOTE: If z/d_1 in commit B were to be involved in dir rename detection, as +# we normaly would since z/ is being renamed to y/, then this would be +# a rename/delete (z/d_1 -> y/d_1 vs. deleted) AND an add/add/add +# conflict of y/d_1 vs. y/d_2 vs. y/d_3. Add/add/add is not +# representable in the index, so the existence of y/d_3 needs to +# cause us to bail on directory rename detection for that path, falling +# back to git behavior without the directory rename detection. + +test_expect_success '5b-setup: Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict' ' + test_create_repo 5b && + ( + cd 5b && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + echo d1 >z/d && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git rm z/d && + git mv z y && + echo d2 >y/d && + git add y/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir y && + echo d3 >y/d && + echo e >z/e && + git add y/d z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_failure '5b-check: Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict' ' + ( + cd 5b && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (add/add).* y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 5 out && + git ls-files -u >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 :2:y/d :3:y/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e A:y/d B:y/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d && + test_path_is_file y/d + ) +' + +# Testcase 5c, Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add +# (Directory rename detection would result in transitive rename vs. +# rename/rename(1to2) and turn it into a rename/rename(1to3). Further, +# rename paths conflict with separate adds on the other side) +# (Related to testcases 3b and 7c) +# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d_1 +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d_2}, w/d_1 +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1,e}, w/d_3, y/d_4 +# Expected: A mess, but only a rename/rename(1to2)/add/add mess. Use the +# presence of y/d_4 in B to avoid doing transitive rename of +# x/d_1 -> z/d_1 -> y/d_1, so that the only paths we have at +# y/d are y/d_2 and y/d_4. We still do the move from z/e to y/e, +# though, because it doesn't have anything in the way. + +test_expect_success '5c-setup: Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add' ' + test_create_repo 5c && + ( + cd 5c && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + mkdir x && + echo d1 >x/d && + git add z x && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + echo d2 >y/d && + git add y/d && + git mv x w && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + git mv x/d z/ && + mkdir w && + mkdir y && + echo d3 >w/d && + echo d4 >y/d && + echo e >z/e && + git add w/ y/ z/e && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_failure '5c-check: Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add' ' + ( + cd 5c && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*x/d.*w/d.*z/d" out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (add/add).* y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 9 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 3 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e && + test_cmp expect actual && + + test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d && + git rev-parse >actual \ + :2:w/d :3:w/d :1:x/d :2:y/d :3:y/d :3:z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/d B:w/d O:x/d A:y/d B:y/d O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object >actual \ + w/d~HEAD w/d~B^0 z/d && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:x/d B:w/d O:x/d && + test_cmp expect actual && + test_path_is_missing x/d && + test_path_is_file y/d && + grep -q "<<<<" y/d # conflict markers should be present + ) +' + +# Testcase 5d, Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename +# Commit O: z/{b,c} +# Commit A: y/{b,c,d_1} +# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_2,f}, y/d/e +# Expected: y/{b,c,d/e,f}, z/d_2, CONFLICT(file/directory), y/d_1~HEAD +# Note: The fact that y/d/ exists in B makes us bail on directory rename +# detection for z/d_2, but that doesn't prevent us from applying the +# directory rename detection for z/f -> y/f. + +test_expect_success '5d-setup: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename' ' + test_create_repo 5d && + ( + cd 5d && + + mkdir z && + echo b >z/b && + echo c >z/c && + git add z && + test_tick && + git commit -m "O" && + + git branch O && + git branch A && + git branch B && + + git checkout A && + git mv z y && + echo d1 >y/d && + git add y/d && + test_tick && + git commit -m "A" && + + git checkout B && + mkdir -p y/d && + echo e >y/d/e && + echo d2 >z/d && + echo f >z/f && + git add y/d/e z/d z/f && + test_tick && + git commit -m "B" + ) +' + +test_expect_failure '5d-check: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename' ' + ( + cd 5d && + + git checkout A^0 && + + test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (file/directory).*y/d" out && + + git ls-files -s >out && + test_line_count = 6 out && + git ls-files -u >out && + test_line_count = 1 out && + git ls-files -o >out && + test_line_count = 2 out && + + git rev-parse >actual \ + :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:z/d :0:y/f :2:y/d :0:y/d/e && + git rev-parse >expect \ + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/d B:z/f A:y/d B:y/d/e && + test_cmp expect actual && + + git hash-object y/d~HEAD >actual && + git rev-parse A:y/d >expect && + test_cmp expect actual + ) +' + +########################################################################### +# Rules suggested by section 5: +# +# If a subset of to-be-renamed files have a file or directory in the way, +# "turn off" the directory rename for those specific sub-paths, falling +# back to old handling. But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b. +########################################################################### + test_done -- 2.14.2