Re: [PATCH 09/30] directory rename detection: testcases checking which side did the rename
From: Stefan Beller <hidden>
Date: 2017-11-14 00:25:58
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 | 283 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 283 insertions(+)diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh index d15153c652..157299105f 100755 --- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh +++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh@@ -1053,4 +1053,287 @@ test_expect_failure '5d-check: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory ren # back to old handling. But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b. ########################################################################### + +########################################################################### +# SECTION 6: Same side of the merge was the one that did the rename +# +# It may sound obvious that you only want to apply implicit directory +# renames to directories if the _other_ side of history did the renaming. +# If you did make an implementation that didn't explicitly enforce this +# rule, the majority of cases that would fall under this section would +# also be solved by following the rules from the above sections. But +# there are still a few that stick out, so this section covers them just +# to make sure we also get them right. +########################################################################### + +# Testcase 6a, Tricky rename/delete +# Commit A: z/{b,c,d} +# Commit B: z/b +# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/d +# Expected: y/b, CONFLICT(rename/delete, z/c -> y/c vs. NULL) +# Note: We're just checking here that the rename of z/b and z/c to put +# them under y/ doesn't accidentally catch z/d and make it look like +# it is also involved in a rename/delete conflict. +
+
+# Testcase 6b, Same rename done on both sides
+# (Related to testcases 6c and 8e)
+# Commit A: z/{b,c}
+# Commit B: y/{b,c}
+# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/dMissing expected state
+# Note: If we did directory rename detection here, we'd move z/d into y/, +# but C did that rename and still decided to put the file into z/, +# so we probably shouldn't apply directory rename detection for it.
correct. Also we don't want to see a rename/rename conflict (obviously).
If we have
Commit A: z/{b_1,c}
Commit B: y/{b_2,c}
Commit C: y/{b_3,c}, z/d
then we'd produce a standard file merge (which may or may not result
in conflict,
depending on touched lines) for y/b_{try-resolve}
+
+# Testcase 6c, Rename only done on same side
+# (Related to testcases 6b and 8e)
+# Commit A: z/{b,c}
+# Commit B: z/{b,c} (no change)
+# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/d
+# Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d
+# NOTE: Seems obvious, but just checking that the implementation doesn't
+# "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.makes sense.
+
+# Testcase 6d, We don't always want transitive renaming
+# (Related to testcase 1c)
+# Commit A: z/{b,c}, x/d
+# Commit B: z/{b,c}, x/d (no change)
+# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/d
+# Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d
+# NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation
+# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.makes sense, too.
+# Testcase 6e, Add/add from one-side
+# Commit A: z/{b,c}
+# Commit B: z/{b,c} (no change)
+# Commit C: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2
+# Expected: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2
+# NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation
+# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c} +
+# add/add conflict on y/d_1 vs y/d_2.
What is less obvious in all these cases is the "(no change)" part to me.
I would think that at least *something* changes in B in all cases above, maybe
add file u/r (un-related) to have the tree ids changed?
("Less obvious" as in: we don't rely on the "no changes" part to make
the decision,
which sounds tempting so far)
test_done
No conclusion box here, so my (misguided) suggestion: If "No change" occurs, just take the other side. ;)