On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:54 AM SZEDER Gábor [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 06:25:55PM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh
index 035edc40b1e..f2bc8a7d2a2 100755
--- a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh
+++ b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh

@@ -697,4 +697,71 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 2' '
      )
 '

+#
+# The following testcase just creates two simple renames (slightly modified
+# on both sides but without conflicting changes), and a directory full of
+# files that are otherwise uninteresting.  The setup is as follows:
+#
+#   base:     unrelated/<BUNCH OF FILES>
+#             numbers
+#             values
+#   upstream: modify: numbers
+#             modify: values
+#   topic:    add: unrelated/foo
+#             modify: numbers
+#             modify: values
+#             rename: numbers -> sequence
+#             rename: values -> progression
+#
+# This is a trivial rename case, but we're curious what happens with a very
+# low renameLimit interacting with the restart optimization trying to notice
+# that unrelated/ looks like a trivial merge candidate.
+#
+test_expect_success 'avoid assuming we detected renames' '
+     git init redo-weirdness &&
+     (
+             cd redo-weirdness &&
+
+             mkdir unrelated &&
+             for i in $(test_seq 1 10)
+             do
+                     >unrelated/$i
+             done &&
+             test_seq  2 10 >numbers &&
+             test_seq 12 20 >values &&
+             git add numbers values unrelated/ &&
+             git commit -m orig &&
+
+             git branch upstream &&
+             git branch topic &&
+
+             git switch upstream &&
+             test_seq  1 10 >numbers &&
+             test_seq 11 20 >values &&
+             git add numbers &&
+             git commit -m "Some tweaks" &&
+
+             git switch topic &&
+
+             >unrelated/foo &&
+             test_seq  2 12 >numbers &&
+             test_seq 12 22 >values &&
+             git add numbers values unrelated/ &&
+             git mv numbers sequence &&
+             git mv values progression &&
+             git commit -m A &&
+
+             #
+             # Actual testing
+             #
+
+             git switch --detach topic^0 &&
+
+             test_must_fail git -c merge.renameLimit=1 rebase upstream &&
+
+             git ls-files -u >actual &&
+             ! test_file_is_empty actual

There is no 'test_file_is_empty' function, but because of the ! at the
beginning of the line it didn't fail the test.

Oops, looks like I meant test_must_be_empty.

The minimal fix would be to use 'test_file_not_empty' instead, but I
wonder whether we should use 'test_line_count = 2' instead for a tad
tighter check.

Makes sense; since this merged about half a year ago, I'll submit a
new patch to fix this.  Thanks for catching and pointing it out!

quoted

+     )
+'
+
 test_done

base-commit: 1ffcbaa1a5f10c9f706314d77f88de20a4a498c2
--
gitgitgadget