directory rename detection: partially renamed directory testcase/discussion

Add a long note about why we are not considering "partial directory
renames" for the current directory rename detection implementation.

Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
index 8049ed5fc9ecbc619d67c821f7f9f12047441216..713ad2b75e1ba427dcf965bd58b6e017f81c4792 100755 (executable)
--- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -735,4 +735,119 @@ test_expect_success '3b-check: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on cu
 #   of a rename on either side of a merge.
 ###########################################################################
 
+
+###########################################################################
+# SECTION 4: Partially renamed directory; still exists on both sides of merge
+#
+# What if we were to attempt to do directory rename detection when someone
+# "mostly" moved a directory but still left some files around, or,
+# equivalently, fully renamed a directory in one commmit and then recreated
+# that directory in a later commit adding some new files and then tried to
+# merge?
+#
+# It's hard to divine user intent in these cases, because you can make an
+# argument that, depending on the intermediate history of the side being
+# merged, that some users will want files in that directory to
+# automatically be detected and renamed, while users with a different
+# intermediate history wouldn't want that rename to happen.
+#
+# I think that it is best to simply not have directory rename detection
+# apply to such cases.  My reasoning for this is four-fold: (1) it's
+# easiest for users in general to figure out what happened if we don't
+# apply directory rename detection in any such case, (2) it's an easy rule
+# to explain ["We don't do directory rename detection if the directory
+# still exists on both sides of the merge"], (3) we can get some hairy
+# edge/corner cases that would be really confusing and possibly not even
+# representable in the index if we were to even try, and [related to 3] (4)
+# attempting to resolve this issue of divining user intent by examining
+# intermediate history goes against the spirit of three-way merges and is a
+# path towards crazy corner cases that are far more complex than what we're
+# already dealing with.
+#
+# Note that the wording of the rule ("We don't do directory rename
+# detection if the directory still exists on both sides of the merge.")
+# also excludes "renaming" of a directory into a subdirectory of itself
+# (e.g. /some/dir/* -> /some/dir/subdir/*).  It may be possible to carve
+# out an exception for "renaming"-beneath-itself cases without opening
+# weird edge/corner cases for other partial directory renames, but for now
+# we are keeping the rule simple.
+#
+# This section contains a test for a partially-renamed-directory case.
+###########################################################################
+
+# Testcase 4a, Directory split, with original directory still present
+#   (Related to testcase 1f)
+#   Commit O: z/{b,c,d,e}
+#   Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, z/e
+#   Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e,f}
+#   Expected: y/{b,c,d}, z/{e,f}
+#   NOTE: Even though most files from z moved to y, we don't want f to follow.
+
+test_expect_success '4a-setup: Directory split, with original directory still present' '
+       test_create_repo 4a &&
+       (
+               cd 4a &&
+
+               mkdir z &&
+               echo b >z/b &&
+               echo c >z/c &&
+               echo d >z/d &&
+               echo e >z/e &&
+               git add z &&
+               test_tick &&
+               git commit -m "O" &&
+
+               git branch O &&
+               git branch A &&
+               git branch B &&
+
+               git checkout A &&
+               mkdir y &&
+               git mv z/b y/ &&
+               git mv z/c y/ &&
+               git mv z/d y/ &&
+               test_tick &&
+               git commit -m "A" &&
+
+               git checkout B &&
+               echo f >z/f &&
+               git add z/f &&
+               test_tick &&
+               git commit -m "B"
+       )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '4a-check: Directory split, with original directory still present' '
+       (
+               cd 4a &&
+
+               git checkout A^0 &&
+
+               git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+               git ls-files -s >out &&
+               test_line_count = 5 out &&
+               git ls-files -u >out &&
+               test_line_count = 0 out &&
+               git ls-files -o >out &&
+               test_line_count = 1 out &&
+
+               git rev-parse >actual \
+                       HEAD:y/b HEAD:y/c HEAD:y/d HEAD:z/e HEAD:z/f &&
+               git rev-parse >expect \
+                       O:z/b    O:z/c    O:z/d    O:z/e    B:z/f &&
+               test_cmp expect actual
+       )
+'
+
+###########################################################################
+# Rules suggested by section 4:
+#
+#   Directory-rename-detection should be turned off for any directories (as
+#   a source for renames) that exist on both sides of the merge.  (The "as
+#   a source for renames" clarification is due to cases like 1c where
+#   the target directory exists on both sides and we do want the rename
+#   detection.)  But, sadly, see testcase 8b.
+###########################################################################
+
 test_done