From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
To: gitster@pobox.com
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, sbeller@google.com,
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v8 04/29] directory rename detection: partially renamed directory testcase/discussion
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:51:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180214185206.15492-5-newren@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180214185206.15492-1-newren@gmail.com>
Add a long note about why we are not considering "partial directory
renames" for the current directory rename detection implementation.
Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
---
t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 115 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
index 8049ed5fc9..713ad2b75e 100755
--- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -735,4 +735,119 @@ test_expect_success '3b-check: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on cu
# of a rename on either side of a merge.
###########################################################################
+
+###########################################################################
+# SECTION 4: Partially renamed directory; still exists on both sides of merge
+#
+# What if we were to attempt to do directory rename detection when someone
+# "mostly" moved a directory but still left some files around, or,
+# equivalently, fully renamed a directory in one commmit and then recreated
+# that directory in a later commit adding some new files and then tried to
+# merge?
+#
+# It's hard to divine user intent in these cases, because you can make an
+# argument that, depending on the intermediate history of the side being
+# merged, that some users will want files in that directory to
+# automatically be detected and renamed, while users with a different
+# intermediate history wouldn't want that rename to happen.
+#
+# I think that it is best to simply not have directory rename detection
+# apply to such cases. My reasoning for this is four-fold: (1) it's
+# easiest for users in general to figure out what happened if we don't
+# apply directory rename detection in any such case, (2) it's an easy rule
+# to explain ["We don't do directory rename detection if the directory
+# still exists on both sides of the merge"], (3) we can get some hairy
+# edge/corner cases that would be really confusing and possibly not even
+# representable in the index if we were to even try, and [related to 3] (4)
+# attempting to resolve this issue of divining user intent by examining
+# intermediate history goes against the spirit of three-way merges and is a
+# path towards crazy corner cases that are far more complex than what we're
+# already dealing with.
+#
+# Note that the wording of the rule ("We don't do directory rename
+# detection if the directory still exists on both sides of the merge.")
+# also excludes "renaming" of a directory into a subdirectory of itself
+# (e.g. /some/dir/* -> /some/dir/subdir/*). It may be possible to carve
+# out an exception for "renaming"-beneath-itself cases without opening
+# weird edge/corner cases for other partial directory renames, but for now
+# we are keeping the rule simple.
+#
+# This section contains a test for a partially-renamed-directory case.
+###########################################################################
+
+# Testcase 4a, Directory split, with original directory still present
+# (Related to testcase 1f)
+# Commit O: z/{b,c,d,e}
+# Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, z/e
+# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e,f}
+# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, z/{e,f}
+# NOTE: Even though most files from z moved to y, we don't want f to follow.
+
+test_expect_success '4a-setup: Directory split, with original directory still present' '
+ test_create_repo 4a &&
+ (
+ cd 4a &&
+
+ mkdir z &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ echo d >z/d &&
+ echo e >z/e &&
+ git add z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ mkdir y &&
+ git mv z/b y/ &&
+ git mv z/c y/ &&
+ git mv z/d y/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ echo f >z/f &&
+ git add z/f &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '4a-check: Directory split, with original directory still present' '
+ (
+ cd 4a &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+ git ls-files -s >out &&
+ test_line_count = 5 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 \
+ HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:z/e HEAD:z/f &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:z/b O:z/c O:z/d O:z/e B:z/f &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+ )
+'
+
+###########################################################################
+# Rules suggested by section 4:
+#
+# Directory-rename-detection should be turned off for any directories (as
+# a source for renames) that exist on both sides of the merge. (The "as
+# a source for renames" clarification is due to cases like 1c where
+# the target directory exists on both sides and we do want the rename
+# detection.) But, sadly, see testcase 8b.
+###########################################################################
+
test_done
--
2.16.1.232.g28d5be9217
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-14 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-14 18:51 [PATCH v8 00/29] Add directory rename detection to git Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 01/29] directory rename detection: basic testcases Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 02/29] directory rename detection: directory splitting testcases Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 03/29] directory rename detection: testcases to avoid taking detection too far Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` Elijah Newren [this message]
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 05/29] directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renames Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 06/29] directory rename detection: testcases checking which side did the rename Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 07/29] directory rename detection: more involved edge/corner testcases Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 08/29] directory rename detection: testcases exploring possibly suboptimal merges Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 09/29] directory rename detection: miscellaneous testcases to complete coverage Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 10/29] directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting untracked files Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 11/29] directory rename detection: tests for handling overwriting dirty files Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 12/29] merge-recursive: move the get_renames() function Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 13/29] merge-recursive: introduce new functions to handle rename logic Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 14/29] merge-recursive: fix leaks of allocated renames and diff_filepairs Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 15/29] merge-recursive: make !o->detect_rename codepath more obvious Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 16/29] merge-recursive: split out code for determining diff_filepairs Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 17/29] merge-recursive: make a helper function for cleanup for handle_renames Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 18/29] merge-recursive: add get_directory_renames() Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 19/29] merge-recursive: check for directory level conflicts Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 20/29] merge-recursive: add computation of collisions due to dir rename & merging Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 21/29] merge-recursive: check for file level conflicts then get new name Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:51 ` [PATCH v8 22/29] merge-recursive: when comparing files, don't include trees Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:52 ` [PATCH v8 23/29] merge-recursive: apply necessary modifications for directory renames Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:52 ` [PATCH v8 24/29] merge-recursive: avoid clobbering untracked files with " Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:52 ` [PATCH v8 25/29] merge-recursive: fix overwriting dirty files involved in renames Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:52 ` [PATCH v8 26/29] merge-recursive: fix remaining directory rename + dirty overwrite cases Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:52 ` [PATCH v8 27/29] directory rename detection: new testcases showcasing a pair of bugs Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:52 ` [PATCH v8 28/29] merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renames Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 18:52 ` [PATCH v8 29/29] merge-recursive: ensure we write updates for directory-renamed file Elijah Newren
2018-02-14 19:44 ` [PATCH v8 00/29] Add directory rename detection to git Stefan Beller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180214185206.15492-5-newren@gmail.com \
--to=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=sbeller@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).