Re: [PATCH 08/30] directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renames
From: Stefan Beller <hidden>
Date: 2017-11-14 00:15:34
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Elijah Newren [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <redacted> --- t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 303 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 303 insertions(+)diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh index ec054b210a..d15153c652 100755 --- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh +++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh@@ -750,4 +750,307 @@ 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 A: z/{b,c}, y/d +# Commit B: z/{b,c,e_1,f}, y/{d,e_2} +# Commit C: 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.
Makes sense.
+# 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 A: z/{b,c,d_1}
+# Commit B: y/{b,c,d_2}
+# Commit C: 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 C 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.+
+# 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 A: z/{b,c}, x/d_1
+# Commit B: y/{b,c,d_2}, w/d_1
+# Commit C: 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 C 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.Missing the expected state, only the explanation is given.
+# Testcase 5d, Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename
+# Commit A: z/{b,c}
+# Commit B: y/{b,c,d_1}
+# Commit C: 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 C 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.Makes sense.
+ +########################################################################### +# 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,
Makes sense.
falling +# back to old handling. But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b.
You seem to be hinting at these all the time.