Re: [PATCH] merge-ort: fix bug with renormalization and rename/delete conflicts
From: Derrick Stolee <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-28 13:55:25
On 12/27/2021 7:20 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Elijah Newren <redacted>
Ever since commit a492d5331c ("merge-ort: ensure we consult df_conflict
and path_conflicts", 2021-06-30), when renormalization is active AND a
file is involved in a rename/delete conflict BUT the file is unmodified
(either before or after renormalization), merge-ort was running into an
assertion failure. This "the file is unmodified" is critical, as when I looked at the test, it seemed too simple. I asked myself, "Why does renormalization matter here?" Turns out it is just an artifact of the carefully organized cases.
if (opt->renormalize &&
blob_unchanged(opt, &ci->stages[0], &ci->stages[side],
path)) {
- ci->merged.is_null = 1;
- ci->merged.clean = 1;
- assert(!ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict);
+ if (!ci->path_conflict) {
+ /*
+ * Blob unchanged after renormalization, so
+ * there's no modify/delete conflict after all;
+ * we can just remove the file.
+ */
+ ci->merged.is_null = 1;
+ ci->merged.clean = 1;
+ /*
+ * file goes away => even if there was a
+ * directory/file conflict there isn't one now.
+ */
+ ci->df_conflict = 0;
+ } else {
+ /* rename/delete, so conflict remains */
+ }This breakdown of the cases is informative, and I like how self-contained the change is.
+test_expect_success 'rename/delete vs. renormalization' ' + git init subrepo && + ( + cd subrepo && + echo foo >oldfile && + git add oldfile && + git commit -m original && + + git branch rename && + git branch nuke && + + git checkout rename && + git mv oldfile newfile && + git commit -m renamed && + + git checkout nuke && + git rm oldfile && + git commit -m deleted && + + git checkout rename^0 && + test_must_fail git -c merge.renormalize=true merge nuke >out && + + grep "rename/delete" out + ) +' + test_done
I tested this on the latest 'master' and saw the following: git: merge-ort.c:3846: process_entry: Assertion `!ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict' failed so it indeed hits this case. This patch looks good to me. Thanks! Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <redacted>