# Testcase 1c, Transitive renaming
# (Related to testcases 3a and 6d -- when should a transitive rename apply?)
# (Related to testcases 9c and 9d -- can transitivity repeat?)
+# (Related to testcase 12b -- joint-transitivity?)
# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d
# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/d
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d}
)
'
-# 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 &&
)
'
-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
)
'
#
# 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.
)
'
+# Testcase 9h, Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side
+# (Extremely closely related to testcase 3a)
+# Commit O: z/{b,c,d_1}
+# Commit A: z/{b,c,d_2}
+# Commit B: y/{b,c}, x/d_1
+# Expected: y/{b,c}, x/d_2
+# NOTE: If we applied the z/ -> y/ rename to z/d, then we'd end up with
+# a rename/rename(1to2) conflict (z/d -> y/d vs. x/d)
+test_expect_success '9h-setup: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
+ test_create_repo 9h &&
+ (
+ cd 9h &&
+
+ mkdir z &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nd\n" >z/d &&
+ git add z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ test_tick &&
+ echo more >>z/d &&
+ git add z/d &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ mkdir y &&
+ mkdir x &&
+ git mv z/b y/ &&
+ git mv z/c y/ &&
+ git mv z/d x/ &&
+ rmdir z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
+ (
+ cd 9h &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+ git ls-files -s >out &&
+ test_line_count = 3 out &&
+
+ git rev-parse >actual \
+ HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:x/d &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:z/b O:z/c A:z/d &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+ )
+'
+
###########################################################################
# Rules suggested by section 9:
#
)
'
-test_expect_failure '11b-check: Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename' '
+test_expect_success '11b-check: Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename' '
(
cd 11b &&
)
'
-test_expect_failure '11d-check: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
+test_expect_success '11d-check: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
(
cd 11d &&
)
'
-test_expect_failure '11e-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add' '
+test_expect_success '11e-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add' '
(
cd 11e &&
)
'
-test_expect_failure '11f-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
+test_expect_success '11f-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
(
cd 11f &&
)
'
+###########################################################################
+# SECTION 12: Everything else
+#
+# Tests suggested by others. Tests added after implementation completed
+# and submitted. Grab bag.
+###########################################################################
+
+# Testcase 12a, Moving one directory hierarchy into another
+# (Related to testcase 9a)
+# Commit O: node1/{leaf1,leaf2}, node2/{leaf3,leaf4}
+# Commit A: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,node2/{leaf3,leaf4}}
+# Commit B: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,leaf5}, node2/{leaf3,leaf4,leaf6}
+# Expected: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,leaf5,node2/{leaf3,leaf4,leaf6}}
+
+test_expect_success '12a-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+ test_create_repo 12a &&
+ (
+ cd 12a &&
+
+ mkdir -p node1 node2 &&
+ echo leaf1 >node1/leaf1 &&
+ echo leaf2 >node1/leaf2 &&
+ echo leaf3 >node2/leaf3 &&
+ echo leaf4 >node2/leaf4 &&
+ git add node1 node2 &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv node2/ node1/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ echo leaf5 >node1/leaf5 &&
+ echo leaf6 >node2/leaf6 &&
+ git add node1 node2 &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '12a-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+ (
+ cd 12a &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+ git ls-files -s >out &&
+ test_line_count = 6 out &&
+
+ git rev-parse >actual \
+ HEAD:node1/leaf1 HEAD:node1/leaf2 HEAD:node1/leaf5 \
+ HEAD:node1/node2/leaf3 \
+ HEAD:node1/node2/leaf4 \
+ HEAD:node1/node2/leaf6 &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:node1/leaf1 O:node1/leaf2 B:node1/leaf5 \
+ O:node2/leaf3 \
+ O:node2/leaf4 \
+ B:node2/leaf6 &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+ )
+'
+
+# Testcase 12b, Moving two directory hierarchies into each other
+# (Related to testcases 1c and 12c)
+# Commit O: node1/{leaf1, leaf2}, node2/{leaf3, leaf4}
+# Commit A: node1/{leaf1, leaf2, node2/{leaf3, leaf4}}
+# Commit B: node2/{leaf3, leaf4, node1/{leaf1, leaf2}}
+# Expected: node1/node2/node1/{leaf1, leaf2},
+# node2/node1/node2/{leaf3, leaf4}
+# NOTE: Without directory renames, we would expect
+# node2/node1/{leaf1, leaf2},
+# node1/node2/{leaf3, leaf4}
+# with directory rename detection, we note that
+# commit A renames node2/ -> node1/node2/
+# commit B renames node1/ -> node2/node1/
+# therefore, applying those directory renames to the initial result
+# (making all four paths experience a transitive renaming), yields
+# the expected result.
+#
+# You may ask, is it weird to have two directories rename each other?
+# To which, I can do no more than shrug my shoulders and say that
+# even simple rules give weird results when given weird inputs.
+
+test_expect_success '12b-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+ test_create_repo 12b &&
+ (
+ cd 12b &&
+
+ mkdir -p node1 node2 &&
+ echo leaf1 >node1/leaf1 &&
+ echo leaf2 >node1/leaf2 &&
+ echo leaf3 >node2/leaf3 &&
+ echo leaf4 >node2/leaf4 &&
+ git add node1 node2 &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv node2/ node1/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ git mv node1/ node2/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '12b-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+ (
+ cd 12b &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+ git ls-files -s >out &&
+ test_line_count = 4 out &&
+
+ git rev-parse >actual \
+ HEAD:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \
+ HEAD:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \
+ HEAD:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \
+ HEAD:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:node1/leaf1 \
+ O:node1/leaf2 \
+ O:node2/leaf3 \
+ O:node2/leaf4 &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+ )
+'
+
+# Testcase 12c, Moving two directory hierarchies into each other w/ content merge
+# (Related to testcase 12b)
+# Commit O: node1/{ leaf1_1, leaf2_1}, node2/{leaf3_1, leaf4_1}
+# Commit A: node1/{ leaf1_2, leaf2_2, node2/{leaf3_2, leaf4_2}}
+# Commit B: node2/{node1/{leaf1_3, leaf2_3}, leaf3_3, leaf4_3}
+# Expected: Content merge conflicts for each of:
+# node1/node2/node1/{leaf1, leaf2},
+# node2/node1/node2/{leaf3, leaf4}
+# NOTE: This is *exactly* like 12c, except that every path is modified on
+# each side of the merge.
+
+test_expect_success '12c-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
+ test_create_repo 12c &&
+ (
+ cd 12c &&
+
+ mkdir -p node1 node2 &&
+ printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf1\n" >node1/leaf1 &&
+ printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf2\n" >node1/leaf2 &&
+ printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf3\n" >node2/leaf3 &&
+ printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\nleaf4\n" >node2/leaf4 &&
+ git add node1 node2 &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv node2/ node1/ &&
+ for i in `git ls-files`; do echo side A >>$i; done &&
+ git add -u &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ git mv node1/ node2/ &&
+ for i in `git ls-files`; do echo side B >>$i; done &&
+ git add -u &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
+ (
+ cd 12c &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+ git ls-files -u >out &&
+ test_line_count = 12 out &&
+
+ git rev-parse >actual \
+ :1:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \
+ :1:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \
+ :1:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \
+ :1:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 \
+ :2:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \
+ :2:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \
+ :2:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \
+ :2:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 \
+ :3:node1/node2/node1/leaf1 \
+ :3:node1/node2/node1/leaf2 \
+ :3:node2/node1/node2/leaf3 \
+ :3:node2/node1/node2/leaf4 &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:node1/leaf1 \
+ O:node1/leaf2 \
+ O:node2/leaf3 \
+ O:node2/leaf4 \
+ A:node1/leaf1 \
+ A:node1/leaf2 \
+ A:node1/node2/leaf3 \
+ A:node1/node2/leaf4 \
+ B:node2/node1/leaf1 \
+ B:node2/node1/leaf2 \
+ B:node2/leaf3 \
+ B:node2/leaf4 &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+ )
+'
+
test_done