# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e/f}
# Expected: y/{b,c,d,e/f}
-test_expect_success '1a-setup: Simple directory rename detection' '
+test_setup_1a () {
test_create_repo 1a &&
(
cd 1a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '1a-check: Simple directory rename detection' '
+test_expect_success '1a: Simple directory rename detection' '
+ test_setup_1a &&
(
cd 1a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
# Commit B: y/{b,c,d}
# Expected: y/{b,c,d,e}
-test_expect_success '1b-setup: Merge a directory with another' '
+test_setup_1b () {
test_create_repo 1b &&
(
cd 1b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '1b-check: Merge a directory with another' '
+test_expect_success '1b: Merge a directory with another' '
+ test_setup_1b &&
(
cd 1b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d}
# Expected: y/{b,c,d} (because x/d -> z/d -> y/d)
-test_expect_success '1c-setup: Transitive renaming' '
+test_setup_1c () {
test_create_repo 1c &&
(
cd 1c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '1c-check: Transitive renaming' '
+test_expect_success '1c: Transitive renaming' '
+ test_setup_1c &&
(
cd 1c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# Note: y/m & z/n should definitely move into x. By the same token, both
# y/wham_1 & z/wham_2 should too...giving us a conflict.
-test_expect_success '1d-setup: Directory renames cause a rename/rename(2to1) conflict' '
+test_setup_1d () {
test_create_repo 1d &&
(
cd 1d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '1d-check: Directory renames cause a rename/rename(2to1) conflict' '
+test_expect_success '1d: Directory renames cause a rename/rename(2to1) conflict' '
+ test_setup_1d &&
(
cd 1d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 2 out &&
git ls-files -o >out &&
- test_line_count = 3 out &&
+ test_line_count = 1 out &&
git rev-parse >actual \
:0:x/b :0:x/c :0:x/d :0:x/e :0:x/m :0:x/n &&
A:y/wham B:z/wham &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
- test_path_is_missing x/wham &&
- test_path_is_file x/wham~HEAD &&
- test_path_is_file x/wham~B^0 &&
-
- git hash-object >actual \
- x/wham~HEAD x/wham~B^0 &&
- git rev-parse >expect \
- A:y/wham B:z/wham &&
- test_cmp expect actual
+ # Test that the two-way merge in x/wham is as expected
+ git cat-file -p :2:x/wham >expect &&
+ git cat-file -p :3:x/wham >other &&
+ >empty &&
+ test_must_fail git merge-file \
+ -L "HEAD" \
+ -L "" \
+ -L "B^0" \
+ expect empty other &&
+ test_cmp expect x/wham
)
'
# Commit B: z/{oldb,oldc,d}
# Expected: y/{newb,newc,d}
-test_expect_success '1e-setup: Renamed directory, with all files being renamed too' '
+test_setup_1e () {
test_create_repo 1e &&
(
cd 1e &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '1e-check: Renamed directory, with all files being renamed too' '
+test_expect_success '1e: Renamed directory, with all files being renamed too' '
+ test_setup_1e &&
(
cd 1e &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# Commit B: y/{b,c}, x/{d,e,f}
# Expected: y/{b,c}, x/{d,e,f,g}
-test_expect_success '1f-setup: Split a directory into two other directories' '
+test_setup_1f () {
test_create_repo 1f &&
(
cd 1f &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '1f-check: Split a directory into two other directories' '
+test_expect_success '1f: Split a directory into two other directories' '
+ test_setup_1f &&
(
cd 1f &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 6 out &&
# Commit A: y/b, w/c
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d}
# Expected: y/b, w/c, z/d, with warning about z/ -> (y/ vs. w/) conflict
-test_expect_success '2a-setup: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' '
+test_setup_2a () {
test_create_repo 2a &&
(
cd 2a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '2a-check: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' '
+test_expect_success '2a: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' '
+ test_setup_2a &&
(
cd 2a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT.*directory rename split" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# Commit A: y/b, w/c
# Commit B: z/{b,c}, x/d
# Expected: y/b, w/c, x/d; No warning about z/ -> (y/ vs. w/) conflict
-test_expect_success '2b-setup: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' '
+test_setup_2b () {
test_create_repo 2b &&
(
cd 2b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '2b-check: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' '
+test_expect_success '2b: Directory split into two on one side, with equal numbers of paths' '
+ test_setup_2b &&
(
cd 2b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# Commit A: z/{b,c,d} (no change)
# Commit B: y/{b,c}, x/d
# Expected: y/{b,c}, x/d
-test_expect_success '3a-setup: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side' '
+test_setup_3a () {
test_create_repo 3a &&
(
cd 3a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '3a-check: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side' '
+test_expect_success '3a: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on other side' '
+ test_setup_3a &&
(
cd 3a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# get it involved in directory rename detection. If it were, we might
# end up with CONFLICT:(z/d -> y/d vs. x/d vs. w/d), i.e. a
# rename/rename/rename(1to3) conflict, which is just weird.
-test_expect_success '3b-setup: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on current side' '
+test_setup_3b () {
test_create_repo 3b &&
(
cd 3b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '3b-check: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on current side' '
+test_expect_success '3b: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on current side' '
+ test_setup_3b &&
(
cd 3b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/d.*x/d.*w/d out &&
test_i18ngrep ! CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*y/d out &&
#
# 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
+# equivalently, fully renamed a directory in one commit and then recreated
# that directory in a later commit adding some new files and then tried to
# merge?
#
# 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_setup_4a () {
test_create_repo 4a &&
(
cd 4a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '4a-check: Directory split, with original directory still present' '
+test_expect_success '4a: Directory split, with original directory still present' '
+ test_setup_4a &&
(
cd 4a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 5 out &&
# of history, giving us no way to represent this conflict in the
# index.
-test_expect_success '5a-setup: Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target' '
+test_setup_5a () {
test_create_repo 5a &&
(
cd 5a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '5a-check: Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target' '
+test_expect_success '5a: Merge directories, other side adds files to original and target' '
+ test_setup_5a &&
(
cd 5a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT.*implicit dir rename" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# Commit B: 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 B were to be involved in dir rename detection, as
-# we normaly would since z/ is being renamed to y/, then this would be
+# we normally 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.
-test_expect_success '5b-setup: Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict' '
+test_setup_5b () {
test_create_repo 5b &&
(
cd 5b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '5b-check: Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict' '
+test_expect_success '5b: Rename/delete in order to get add/add/add conflict' '
+ test_setup_5b &&
(
cd 5b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (add/add).* y/d" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# 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.
-test_expect_success '5c-setup: Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add' '
+test_setup_5c () {
test_create_repo 5c &&
(
cd 5c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '5c-check: Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add' '
+test_expect_success '5c: Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add' '
+ test_setup_5c &&
(
cd 5c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*x/d.*w/d.*z/d" out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (add/add).* y/d" out &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 6 out &&
git ls-files -o >out &&
- test_line_count = 3 out &&
+ test_line_count = 1 out &&
git rev-parse >actual \
:0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
git hash-object >actual \
- w/d~HEAD w/d~B^0 z/d &&
+ z/d &&
git rev-parse >expect \
- O:x/d B:w/d O:x/d &&
+ O:x/d &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
test_path_is_missing x/d &&
test_path_is_file y/d &&
# detection for z/d_2, but that doesn't prevent us from applying the
# directory rename detection for z/f -> y/f.
-test_expect_success '5d-setup: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename' '
+test_setup_5d () {
test_create_repo 5d &&
(
cd 5d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '5d-check: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename' '
+test_expect_success '5d: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory rename' '
+ test_setup_5d &&
(
cd 5d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (file/directory).*y/d" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# them under y/ doesn't accidentally catch z/d and make it look like
# it is also involved in a rename/delete conflict.
-test_expect_success '6a-setup: Tricky rename/delete' '
+test_setup_6a () {
test_create_repo 6a &&
(
cd 6a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '6a-check: Tricky rename/delete' '
+test_expect_success '6a: Tricky rename/delete' '
+ test_setup_6a &&
(
cd 6a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*z/c.*y/c" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# but B did that rename and still decided to put the file into z/,
# so we probably shouldn't apply directory rename detection for it.
-test_expect_success '6b-setup: Same rename done on both sides' '
+test_setup_6b () {
test_create_repo 6b &&
(
cd 6b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '6b-check: Same rename done on both sides' '
+test_expect_success '6b: Same rename done on both sides' '
+ test_setup_6b &&
(
cd 6b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# NOTE: Seems obvious, but just checking that the implementation doesn't
# "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.
-test_expect_success '6c-setup: Rename only done on same side' '
+test_setup_6c () {
test_create_repo 6c &&
(
cd 6c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '6c-check: Rename only done on same side' '
+test_expect_success '6c: Rename only done on same side' '
+ test_setup_6c &&
(
cd 6c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation
# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.
-test_expect_success '6d-setup: We do not always want transitive renaming' '
+test_setup_6d () {
test_create_repo 6d &&
(
cd 6d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '6d-check: We do not always want transitive renaming' '
+test_expect_success '6d: We do not always want transitive renaming' '
+ test_setup_6d &&
(
cd 6d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c} +
# add/add conflict on y/d_1 vs y/d_2.
-test_expect_success '6e-setup: Add/add from one side' '
+test_setup_6e () {
test_create_repo 6e &&
(
cd 6e &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '6e-check: Add/add from one side' '
+test_expect_success '6e: Add/add from one side' '
+ test_setup_6e &&
(
cd 6e &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
# Expected: y/d, CONFLICT(rename/rename for both z/b and z/c)
# NOTE: There's a rename of z/ here, y/ has more renames, so z/d -> y/d.
-test_expect_success '7a-setup: rename-dir vs. rename-dir (NOT split evenly) PLUS add-other-file' '
+test_setup_7a () {
test_create_repo 7a &&
(
cd 7a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '7a-check: rename-dir vs. rename-dir (NOT split evenly) PLUS add-other-file' '
+test_expect_success '7a: rename-dir vs. rename-dir (NOT split evenly) PLUS add-other-file' '
+ test_setup_7a &&
(
cd 7a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*z/b.*y/b.*w/b" out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*z/c.*y/c.*x/c" out &&
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1}, w/d_2
# Expected: y/{b,c}, CONFLICT(rename/rename(2to1): x/d_1, w/d_2 -> y_d)
-test_expect_success '7b-setup: rename/rename(2to1), but only due to transitive rename' '
+test_setup_7b () {
test_create_repo 7b &&
(
cd 7b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '7b-check: rename/rename(2to1), but only due to transitive rename' '
+test_expect_success '7b: rename/rename(2to1), but only due to transitive rename' '
+ test_setup_7b &&
(
cd 7b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 2 out &&
git ls-files -o >out &&
- test_line_count = 3 out &&
+ test_line_count = 1 out &&
git rev-parse >actual \
:0:y/b :0:y/c :2:y/d :3:y/d &&
O:z/b O:z/c O:w/d O:x/d &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
- test_path_is_missing y/d &&
- test_path_is_file y/d~HEAD &&
- test_path_is_file y/d~B^0 &&
-
- git hash-object >actual \
- y/d~HEAD y/d~B^0 &&
- git rev-parse >expect \
- O:w/d O:x/d &&
- test_cmp expect actual
+ # Test that the two-way merge in y/d is as expected
+ git cat-file -p :2:y/d >expect &&
+ git cat-file -p :3:y/d >other &&
+ >empty &&
+ test_must_fail git merge-file \
+ -L "HEAD" \
+ -L "" \
+ -L "B^0" \
+ expect empty other &&
+ test_cmp expect y/d
)
'
# neither CONFLICT(x/d -> w/d vs. z/d)
# nor CONFLiCT x/d -> w/d vs. y/d vs. z/d)
-test_expect_success '7c-setup: rename/rename(1to...2or3); transitive rename may add complexity' '
+test_setup_7c () {
test_create_repo 7c &&
(
cd 7c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '7c-check: rename/rename(1to...2or3); transitive rename may add complexity' '
+test_expect_success '7c: rename/rename(1to...2or3); transitive rename may add complexity' '
+ test_setup_7c &&
(
cd 7c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename).*x/d.*w/d.*y/d" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# Expected: y/{b,c}, CONFLICT(delete x/d vs rename to y/d)
# NOTE: z->y so NOT CONFLICT(delete x/d vs rename to z/d)
-test_expect_success '7d-setup: transitive rename involved in rename/delete; how is it reported?' '
+test_setup_7d () {
test_create_repo 7d &&
(
cd 7d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '7d-check: transitive rename involved in rename/delete; how is it reported?' '
+test_expect_success '7d: transitive rename involved in rename/delete; how is it reported?' '
+ test_setup_7d &&
(
cd 7d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*x/d.*y/d" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# see testcases 9c and 9d for further discussion of this issue and
# how it's resolved.
-test_expect_success '7e-setup: transitive rename in rename/delete AND dirs in the way' '
+test_setup_7e () {
test_create_repo 7e &&
(
cd 7e &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '7e-check: transitive rename in rename/delete AND dirs in the way' '
+test_expect_success '7e: transitive rename in rename/delete AND dirs in the way' '
+ test_setup_7e &&
(
cd 7e &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*x/d.*y/d" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# simple rule from section 5 prevents me from handling this as optimally as
# we potentially could.
-test_expect_success '8a-setup: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way' '
+test_setup_8a () {
test_create_repo 8a &&
(
cd 8a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '8a-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way' '
+test_expect_success '8a: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way' '
+ test_setup_8a &&
(
cd 8a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 6 out &&
# making us fall back to pre-directory-rename-detection behavior for both
# e_1 and e_2.
-test_expect_success '8b-setup: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, with conflicting filenames' '
+test_setup_8b () {
test_create_repo 8b &&
(
cd 8b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, with conflicting filenames' '
+test_expect_success '8b: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, with conflicting filenames' '
+ test_setup_8b &&
(
cd 8b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 6 out &&
#
# Note: It could easily be argued that the correct resolution here is
# y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: z/d -> y/d vs deleted)
-# and that the modifed version of d should be present in y/ after
+# and that the modified version of d should be present in y/ after
# the merge, just marked as conflicted. Indeed, I previously did
# argue that. But applying directory renames to the side of
# history where a file is merely modified results in spurious
# rename/rename(1to2) conflicts -- see testcase 9h. See also
# notes in 8d.
-test_expect_success '8c-setup: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?' '
+test_setup_8c () {
test_create_repo 8c &&
(
cd 8c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '8c-check: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete' '
+test_expect_success '8c: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete' '
+ test_setup_8c &&
(
cd 8c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (modify/delete).* z/d" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# during merging are supposed to be about opposite sides doing things
# differently.
-test_expect_success '8d-setup: rename/delete...or not?' '
+test_setup_8d () {
test_create_repo 8d &&
(
cd 8d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '8d-check: rename/delete...or not?' '
+test_expect_success '8d: rename/delete...or not?' '
+ test_setup_8d &&
(
cd 8d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# about the ramifications of doing that, I didn't know how to rule out
# that opening other weird edge and corner cases so I just punted.
-test_expect_success '8e-setup: Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory' '
+test_setup_8e () {
test_create_repo 8e &&
(
cd 8e &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '8e-check: Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory' '
+test_expect_success '8e: Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory' '
+ test_setup_8e &&
(
cd 8e &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/c.*y/c.*w/c out &&
test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*rename/rename.*z/b.*y/b.*w/b out &&
# of which one had the most paths going to it. A naive implementation
# of that could take the new file in commit B at z/i to x/w/i or x/i.
-test_expect_success '9a-setup: Inner renamed directory within outer renamed directory' '
+test_setup_9a () {
test_create_repo 9a &&
(
cd 9a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '9a-check: Inner renamed directory within outer renamed directory' '
+test_expect_success '9a: Inner renamed directory within outer renamed directory' '
+ test_setup_9a &&
(
cd 9a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 7 out &&
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_3}
# Expected: y/{b,c,d_merged}
-test_expect_success '9b-setup: Transitive rename with content merge' '
+test_setup_9b () {
test_create_repo 9b &&
(
cd 9b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '9b-check: Transitive rename with content merge' '
+test_expect_success '9b: Transitive rename with content merge' '
+ test_setup_9b &&
(
cd 9b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# away, then ignore that particular rename from the other side of
# history for any implicit directory renames.
-test_expect_success '9c-setup: Doubly transitive rename?' '
+test_setup_9c () {
test_create_repo 9c &&
(
cd 9c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '9c-check: Doubly transitive rename?' '
+test_expect_success '9c: Doubly transitive rename?' '
+ test_setup_9c &&
(
cd 9c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying x -> z rename to x/f" out &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# simple rules that are consistent with what we need for all the other
# testcases and simplifies things for the user.
-test_expect_success '9d-setup: N-way transitive rename?' '
+test_setup_9d () {
test_create_repo 9d &&
(
cd 9d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '9d-check: N-way transitive rename?' '
+test_expect_success '9d: N-way transitive rename?' '
+ test_setup_9d &&
(
cd 9d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying z -> y rename to z/t" out &&
test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying y -> x rename to y/a" out &&
test_i18ngrep "WARNING: Avoiding applying x -> w rename to x/b" out &&
# Expected: combined/{a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l}, CONFLICT(Nto1) warnings,
# dir1/yo, dir2/yo, dir3/yo, dirN/yo
-test_expect_success '9e-setup: N-to-1 whammo' '
+test_setup_9e () {
test_create_repo 9e &&
(
cd 9e &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success C_LOCALE_OUTPUT '9e-check: N-to-1 whammo' '
+test_expect_success C_LOCALE_OUTPUT '9e: N-to-1 whammo' '
+ test_setup_9e &&
(
cd 9e &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
grep "CONFLICT (implicit dir rename): Cannot map more than one path to combined/yo" out >error_line &&
grep -q dir1/yo error_line &&
grep -q dir2/yo error_line &&
# Commit B: goal/{a,b}/$more_files, goal/c
# Expected: priority/{a,b}/$more_files, priority/c
-test_expect_success '9f-setup: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs' '
+test_setup_9f () {
test_create_repo 9f &&
(
cd 9f &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '9f-check: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs' '
+test_expect_success '9f: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs' '
+ test_setup_9f &&
(
cd 9f &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
# Commit B: goal/{a,b}/$more_files, goal/c
# Expected: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files, priority/c
-test_expect_success '9g-setup: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs, immediate subdirs renamed' '
+test_setup_9g () {
test_create_repo 9g &&
(
cd 9g &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_failure '9g-check: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs, immediate subdirs renamed' '
+test_expect_failure '9g: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs, immediate subdirs renamed' '
(
cd 9g &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
# Expected: y/{b,c}, x/d_2
# NOTE: If we applied the z/ -> y/ rename to z/d, then we'd end up with
# a rename/rename(1to2) conflict (z/d -> y/d vs. x/d)
-test_expect_success '9h-setup: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
+test_setup_9h () {
test_create_repo 9h &&
(
cd 9h &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
+test_expect_success '9h: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' '
+ test_setup_9h &&
(
cd 9h &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 3 out &&
# Expected: Aborted Merge +
# ERROR_MSG(untracked working tree files would be overwritten by merge)
-test_expect_success '10a-setup: Overwrite untracked with normal rename/delete' '
+test_setup_10a () {
test_create_repo 10a &&
(
cd 10a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '10a-check: Overwrite untracked with normal rename/delete' '
+test_expect_success '10a: Overwrite untracked with normal rename/delete' '
+ test_setup_10a &&
(
cd 10a &&
echo very >z/c &&
echo important >z/d &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "The following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by merge" err &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# z/c_1 -> z/d_1 rename recorded at stage 3 for y/d +
# ERROR_MSG(refusing to lose untracked file at 'y/d')
-test_expect_success '10b-setup: Overwrite untracked with dir rename + delete' '
+test_setup_10b () {
test_create_repo 10b &&
(
cd 10b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '10b-check: Overwrite untracked with dir rename + delete' '
+test_expect_success '10b: Overwrite untracked with dir rename + delete' '
+ test_setup_10b &&
(
cd 10b &&
echo important >y/d &&
echo contents >y/e &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).*Version B\^0 of y/d left in tree at y/d~B\^0" out &&
test_i18ngrep "Error: Refusing to lose untracked file at y/e; writing to y/e~B\^0 instead" out &&
# y/c~B^0 +
# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose untracked file at y/c)
-test_expect_success '10c-setup: Overwrite untracked with dir rename/rename(1to2)' '
- test_create_repo 10c &&
+test_setup_10c () {
+ test_create_repo 10c_$1 &&
(
- cd 10c &&
+ cd 10c_$1 &&
mkdir z x &&
echo a >z/a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '10c-check: Overwrite untracked with dir rename/rename(1to2)' '
+test_expect_success '10c1: Overwrite untracked with dir rename/rename(1to2)' '
+ test_setup_10c 1 &&
(
- cd 10c &&
+ cd 10c_1 &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo important >y/c &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose untracked file at y/c; adding as y/c~B\^0 instead" out &&
)
'
+test_expect_success '10c2: Overwrite untracked with dir rename/rename(1to2), other direction' '
+ test_setup_10c 2 &&
+ (
+ cd 10c_2 &&
+
+ git reset --hard &&
+ git clean -fdqx &&
+
+ git checkout B^0 &&
+ mkdir y &&
+ echo important >y/c &&
+
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive A^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
+ test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose untracked file at y/c; adding as y/c~HEAD instead" out &&
+
+ git ls-files -s >out &&
+ test_line_count = 6 out &&
+ git ls-files -u >out &&
+ test_line_count = 3 out &&
+ git ls-files -o >out &&
+ test_line_count = 3 out &&
+
+ git rev-parse >actual \
+ :0:y/a :0:y/b :0:x/d :1:x/c :3:w/c :2:y/c &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:z/a O:z/b O:x/d O:x/c O:x/c O:x/c &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ git hash-object y/c~HEAD >actual &&
+ git rev-parse O:x/c >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ echo important >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect y/c
+ )
+'
+
# Testcase 10d, Delete untracked w/ dir rename/rename(2to1)
# Commit O: z/{a,b,c_1}, x/{d,e,f_2}
# Commit A: y/{a,b}, x/{d,e,f_2,wham_1} + untracked y/wham
# Commit B: z/{a,b,c_1,wham_2}, y/{d,e}
-# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b,d,e} + untracked y/{wham,wham~B^0,wham~HEAD}+
+# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b,d,e} + untracked y/{wham,wham~merged}+
# CONFLICT(rename/rename) z/c_1 vs x/f_2 -> y/wham
# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose untracked file at y/wham)
-test_expect_success '10d-setup: Delete untracked with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
+test_setup_10d () {
test_create_repo 10d &&
(
cd 10d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '10d-check: Delete untracked with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
+test_expect_success '10d: Delete untracked with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
+ test_setup_10d &&
(
cd 10d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo important >y/wham &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose untracked file at y/wham" out &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 2 out &&
git ls-files -o >out &&
- test_line_count = 4 out &&
+ test_line_count = 3 out &&
git rev-parse >actual \
:0:y/a :0:y/b :0:y/d :0:y/e :2:y/wham :3:y/wham &&
echo important >expect &&
test_cmp expect y/wham &&
- git hash-object >actual \
- y/wham~B^0 y/wham~HEAD &&
- git rev-parse >expect \
- O:x/f O:z/c &&
- test_cmp expect actual
+ # Test that the two-way merge in y/wham~merged is as expected
+ git cat-file -p :2:y/wham >expect &&
+ git cat-file -p :3:y/wham >other &&
+ >empty &&
+ test_must_fail git merge-file \
+ -L "HEAD" \
+ -L "" \
+ -L "B^0" \
+ expect empty other &&
+ test_cmp expect y/wham~merged
)
'
# Commit B: z/{a,b,c}
# Expected: y/{a,b,c} + untracked z/c
-test_expect_success '10e-setup: Does git complain about untracked file that is not really in the way?' '
+test_setup_10e () {
test_create_repo 10e &&
(
cd 10e &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_failure '10e-check: Does git complain about untracked file that is not really in the way?' '
+test_expect_failure '10e: Does git complain about untracked file that is not really in the way?' '
(
cd 10e &&
mkdir z &&
echo random >z/c &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep ! "following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by merge" err &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
# z/c~HEAD with contents of B:z/b_v2,
# z/c with uncommitted mods on top of A:z/c_v1
-test_expect_success '11a-setup: Avoid losing dirty contents with simple rename' '
+test_setup_11a () {
test_create_repo 11a &&
(
cd 11a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '11a-check: Avoid losing dirty contents with simple rename' '
+test_expect_success '11a: Avoid losing dirty contents with simple rename' '
+ test_setup_11a &&
(
cd 11a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo stuff >>z/c &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c" out &&
test_seq 1 10 >expected &&
# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c)
-test_expect_success '11b-setup: Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename' '
+test_setup_11b () {
test_create_repo 11b &&
(
cd 11b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '11b-check: Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename' '
+test_expect_success '11b: Avoid losing dirty file involved in directory rename' '
+ test_setup_11b &&
(
cd 11b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo stuff >>z/c &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c" out &&
grep -q stuff z/c &&
# Expected: Abort_msg("following files would be overwritten by merge") +
# y/c left untouched (still has uncommitted mods)
-test_expect_success '11c-setup: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
+test_setup_11c () {
test_create_repo 11c &&
(
cd 11c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '11c-check: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
+test_expect_success '11c: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
+ test_setup_11c &&
(
cd 11c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo stuff >>y/c &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "following files would be overwritten by merge" err &&
grep -q stuff y/c &&
# Warning_Msg("Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c) +
# y/{a,c~HEAD,c/d}, x/b, now-untracked z/c_v1 with uncommitted mods
-test_expect_success '11d-setup: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
+test_setup_11d () {
test_create_repo 11d &&
(
cd 11d &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '11d-check: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
+test_expect_success '11d: Avoid losing not-uptodate with rename + D/F conflict' '
+ test_setup_11d &&
(
cd 11d &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo stuff >>z/c &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at z/c" out &&
grep -q stuff z/c &&
# y/c~HEAD has A:y/c_2 contents
# y/c has dirty file from before merge
-test_expect_success '11e-setup: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add' '
+test_setup_11e () {
test_create_repo 11e &&
(
cd 11e &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '11e-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add' '
+test_expect_success '11e: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(1to2)/add' '
+ test_setup_11e &&
(
cd 11e &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo mods >>y/c &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at y/c" out &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
git ls-files -o >out &&
- test_line_count = 4 out &&
+ test_line_count = 3 out &&
echo different >expected &&
echo mods >>expected &&
O:z/a O:z/b O:x/d O:x/c O:x/c A:y/c O:x/c &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
- git hash-object >actual \
- y/c~B^0 y/c~HEAD &&
- git rev-parse >expect \
- O:x/c A:y/c &&
- test_cmp expect actual
+ # See if y/c~merged has expected contents; requires manually
+ # doing the expected file merge
+ git cat-file -p A:y/c >c1 &&
+ git cat-file -p B:z/c >c2 &&
+ >empty &&
+ test_must_fail git merge-file \
+ -L "HEAD" \
+ -L "" \
+ -L "B^0" \
+ c1 empty c2 &&
+ test_cmp c1 y/c~merged
)
'
# Commit O: z/{a,b}, x/{c_1,d_2}
# Commit A: y/{a,b,wham_1}, x/d_2, except y/wham has uncommitted mods
# Commit B: z/{a,b,wham_2}, x/c_1
-# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b} + untracked y/{wham~B^0,wham~B^HEAD} +
+# Expected: Failed Merge; y/{a,b} + untracked y/{wham~merged} +
# y/wham with dirty changes from before merge +
# CONFLICT(rename/rename) x/c vs x/d -> y/wham
# ERROR_MSG(Refusing to lose dirty file at y/wham)
-test_expect_success '11f-setup: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
+test_setup_11f () {
test_create_repo 11f &&
(
cd 11f &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '11f-check: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
+test_expect_success '11f: Avoid deleting not-uptodate with dir rename/rename(2to1)' '
+ test_setup_11f &&
(
cd 11f &&
git checkout A^0 &&
echo important >>y/wham &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
test_i18ngrep "Refusing to lose dirty file at y/wham" out &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 2 out &&
git ls-files -o >out &&
- test_line_count = 4 out &&
+ test_line_count = 3 out &&
test_seq 1 10 >expected &&
echo important >>expected &&
test_cmp expected y/wham &&
test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/wham &&
- git hash-object >actual \
- y/wham~B^0 y/wham~HEAD &&
- git rev-parse >expect \
- O:x/d O:x/c &&
- test_cmp expect actual &&
git rev-parse >actual \
:0:y/a :0:y/b :2:y/wham :3:y/wham &&
git rev-parse >expect \
O:z/a O:z/b O:x/c O:x/d &&
- test_cmp expect actual
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ # Test that the two-way merge in y/wham~merged is as expected
+ git cat-file -p :2:y/wham >expect &&
+ git cat-file -p :3:y/wham >other &&
+ >empty &&
+ test_must_fail git merge-file \
+ -L "HEAD" \
+ -L "" \
+ -L "B^0" \
+ expect empty other &&
+ test_cmp expect y/wham~merged
)
'
# Commit B: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,leaf5}, node2/{leaf3,leaf4,leaf6}
# Expected: node1/{leaf1,leaf2,leaf5,node2/{leaf3,leaf4,leaf6}}
-test_expect_success '12a-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+test_setup_12a () {
test_create_repo 12a &&
(
cd 12a &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '12a-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+test_expect_success '12a: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+ test_setup_12a &&
(
cd 12a &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 6 out &&
# To which, I can do no more than shrug my shoulders and say that
# even simple rules give weird results when given weird inputs.
-test_expect_success '12b-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+test_setup_12b () {
test_create_repo 12b &&
(
cd 12b &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '12b-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another' '
+test_expect_success '12b: Moving two directory hierarchies into each other' '
+ test_setup_12b &&
(
cd 12b &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -s >out &&
test_line_count = 4 out &&
# NOTE: This is *exactly* like 12c, except that every path is modified on
# each side of the merge.
-test_expect_success '12c-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
+test_setup_12c () {
test_create_repo 12c &&
(
cd 12c &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m "B"
)
-'
+}
-test_expect_success '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
+test_expect_success '12c: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' '
+ test_setup_12c &&
(
cd 12c &&
git checkout A^0 &&
- test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
git ls-files -u >out &&
test_line_count = 12 out &&
)
'
+# Testcase 12d, Rename/merge of subdirectory into the root
+# Commit O: a/b/subdir/foo
+# Commit A: subdir/foo
+# Commit B: a/b/subdir/foo, a/b/bar
+# Expected: subdir/foo, bar
+
+test_setup_12d () {
+ test_create_repo 12d &&
+ (
+ cd 12d &&
+
+ mkdir -p a/b/subdir &&
+ test_commit a/b/subdir/foo &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ mkdir subdir &&
+ git mv a/b/subdir/foo.t subdir/foo.t &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ test_commit a/b/bar
+ )
+}
+
+test_expect_success '12d: Rename/merge subdir into the root, variant 1' '
+ test_setup_12d &&
+ (
+ cd 12d &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+ git ls-files -s >out &&
+ test_line_count = 2 out &&
+
+ git rev-parse >actual \
+ HEAD:subdir/foo.t HEAD:bar.t &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:a/b/subdir/foo.t B:a/b/bar.t &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ git hash-object bar.t >actual &&
+ git rev-parse B:a/b/bar.t >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:a/b/subdir/foo.t &&
+ test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:a/b/bar.t &&
+ test_path_is_missing a/ &&
+ test_path_is_file bar.t
+ )
+'
+
+# Testcase 12e, Rename/merge of subdirectory into the root
+# Commit O: a/b/foo
+# Commit A: foo
+# Commit B: a/b/foo, a/b/bar
+# Expected: foo, bar
+
+test_setup_12e () {
+ test_create_repo 12e &&
+ (
+ cd 12e &&
+
+ mkdir -p a/b &&
+ test_commit a/b/foo &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ mkdir subdir &&
+ git mv a/b/foo.t foo.t &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ test_commit a/b/bar
+ )
+}
+
+test_expect_success '12e: Rename/merge subdir into the root, variant 2' '
+ test_setup_12e &&
+ (
+ cd 12e &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 &&
+
+ git ls-files -s >out &&
+ test_line_count = 2 out &&
+
+ git rev-parse >actual \
+ HEAD:foo.t HEAD:bar.t &&
+ git rev-parse >expect \
+ O:a/b/foo.t B:a/b/bar.t &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ git hash-object bar.t >actual &&
+ git rev-parse B:a/b/bar.t >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:a/b/foo.t &&
+ test_must_fail git rev-parse HEAD:a/b/bar.t &&
+ test_path_is_missing a/ &&
+ test_path_is_file bar.t
+ )
+'
+
+###########################################################################
+# SECTION 13: Checking informational and conflict messages
+#
+# A year after directory rename detection became the default, it was
+# instead decided to report conflicts on the pathname on the basis that
+# some users may expect the new files added or moved into a directory to
+# be unrelated to all the other files in that directory, and thus that
+# directory rename detection is unexpected. Test that the messages printed
+# match our expectation.
+###########################################################################
+
+# Testcase 13a, Basic directory rename with newly added files
+# Commit O: z/{b,c}
+# Commit A: y/{b,c}
+# Commit B: z/{b,c,d,e/f}
+# Expected: y/{b,c,d,e/f}, with notices/conflicts for both y/d and y/e/f
+
+test_setup_13a () {
+ test_create_repo 13a_$1 &&
+ (
+ cd 13a_$1 &&
+
+ mkdir z &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ git add z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv z y &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ echo d >z/d &&
+ mkdir z/e &&
+ echo f >z/e/f &&
+ git add z/d z/e/f &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+}
+
+test_expect_success '13a(conflict): messages for newly added files' '
+ test_setup_13a conflict &&
+ (
+ cd 13a_conflict &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*z/e/f.added.in.B^0.*y/e/f out &&
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*z/d.added.in.B^0.*y/d out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep z/ paths &&
+ grep "y/[de]" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing z/d &&
+ test_path_is_file y/d &&
+ test_path_is_missing z/e/f &&
+ test_path_is_file y/e/f
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '13a(info): messages for newly added files' '
+ test_setup_13a info &&
+ (
+ cd 13a_info &&
+
+ git reset --hard &&
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*z/e/f.added.in.B^0.*y/e/f out &&
+ test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*z/d.added.in.B^0.*y/d out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep z/ paths &&
+ grep "y/[de]" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing z/d &&
+ test_path_is_file y/d &&
+ test_path_is_missing z/e/f &&
+ test_path_is_file y/e/f
+ )
+'
+
+# Testcase 13b, Transitive rename with conflicted content merge and default
+# "conflict" setting
+# (Related to testcase 1c, 9b)
+# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/d_1
+# Commit A: y/{b,c}, x/d_2
+# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_3}
+# Expected: y/{b,c,d_merged}, with two conflict messages for y/d,
+# one about content, and one about file location
+
+test_setup_13b () {
+ test_create_repo 13b_$1 &&
+ (
+ cd 13b_$1 &&
+
+ mkdir x &&
+ mkdir z &&
+ test_seq 1 10 >x/d &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ git add x z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv z y &&
+ echo 11 >>x/d &&
+ git add x/d &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ echo eleven >>x/d &&
+ git mv x/d z/d &&
+ git add z/d &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+}
+
+test_expect_success '13b(conflict): messages for transitive rename with conflicted content' '
+ test_setup_13b conflict &&
+ (
+ cd 13b_conflict &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*content.*Merge.conflict.in.y/d out &&
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.*moved.to.y/d out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep z/ paths &&
+ grep "y/d" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing z/d &&
+ test_path_is_file y/d
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '13b(info): messages for transitive rename with conflicted content' '
+ test_setup_13b info &&
+ (
+ cd 13b_info &&
+
+ git reset --hard &&
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT.*content.*Merge.conflict.in.y/d out &&
+ test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.in.B^0.*moving.it.to.y/d out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep z/ paths &&
+ grep "y/d" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing z/d &&
+ test_path_is_file y/d
+ )
+'
+
+# Testcase 13c, Rename/rename(1to1) due to directory rename
+# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/{d,e}
+# Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, x/e
+# Commit B: z/{b,c,d}, x/e
+# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, with info or conflict messages for d (
+# A: renamed x/d -> z/d; B: renamed z/ -> y/ AND renamed x/d to y/d
+# One could argue A had partial knowledge of what was done with
+# d and B had full knowledge, but that's a slippery slope as
+# shown in testcase 13d.
+
+test_setup_13c () {
+ test_create_repo 13c_$1 &&
+ (
+ cd 13c_$1 &&
+
+ mkdir x &&
+ mkdir z &&
+ test_seq 1 10 >x/d &&
+ echo e >x/e &&
+ echo b >z/b &&
+ echo c >z/c &&
+ git add x z &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv z y &&
+ git mv x/d y/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ git mv x/d z/d &&
+ git add z/d &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+}
+
+test_expect_success '13c(conflict): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via transitive rename' '
+ test_setup_13c conflict &&
+ (
+ cd 13c_conflict &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.*moved.to.y/d out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep z/ paths &&
+ grep "y/d" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing z/d &&
+ test_path_is_file y/d
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '13c(info): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via transitive rename' '
+ test_setup_13c info &&
+ (
+ cd 13c_info &&
+
+ git reset --hard &&
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep Path.updated:.*x/d.renamed.to.z/d.in.B^0.*moving.it.to.y/d out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep z/ paths &&
+ grep "y/d" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing z/d &&
+ test_path_is_file y/d
+ )
+'
+
+# Testcase 13d, Rename/rename(1to1) due to directory rename on both sides
+# Commit O: a/{z,y}, b/x, c/w
+# Commit A: a/z, b/{y,x}, d/w
+# Commit B: a/z, d/x, c/{y,w}
+# Expected: a/z, d/{y,x,w} with no file location conflict for x
+# Easy cases:
+# * z is always in a; so it stays in a.
+# * x starts in b, only modified on one side to move into d/
+# * w starts in c, only modified on one side to move into d/
+# Hard case:
+# * A renames a/y to b/y, and B renames b/->d/ => a/y -> d/y
+# * B renames a/y to c/y, and A renames c/->d/ => a/y -> d/y
+# No conflict in where a/y ends up, so put it in d/y.
+
+test_setup_13d () {
+ test_create_repo 13d_$1 &&
+ (
+ cd 13d_$1 &&
+
+ mkdir a &&
+ mkdir b &&
+ mkdir c &&
+ echo z >a/z &&
+ echo y >a/y &&
+ echo x >b/x &&
+ echo w >c/w &&
+ git add a b c &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv a/y b/ &&
+ git mv c/ d/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ git mv a/y c/ &&
+ git mv b/ d/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B"
+ )
+}
+
+test_expect_success '13d(conflict): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via dual transitive rename' '
+ test_setup_13d conflict &&
+ (
+ cd 13d_conflict &&
+
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*a/y.renamed.to.b/y.*moved.to.d/y out &&
+ test_i18ngrep CONFLICT..file.location.*a/y.renamed.to.c/y.*moved.to.d/y out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep b/ paths &&
+ ! grep c/ paths &&
+ grep "d/y" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing b/y &&
+ test_path_is_missing c/y &&
+ test_path_is_file d/y
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success '13d(info): messages for rename/rename(1to1) via dual transitive rename' '
+ test_setup_13d info &&
+ (
+ cd 13d_info &&
+
+ git reset --hard &&
+ git checkout A^0 &&
+
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep Path.updated.*a/y.renamed.to.b/y.*moving.it.to.d/y out &&
+ test_i18ngrep Path.updated.*a/y.renamed.to.c/y.*moving.it.to.d/y out &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep b/ paths &&
+ ! grep c/ paths &&
+ grep "d/y" paths &&
+
+ test_path_is_missing b/y &&
+ test_path_is_missing c/y &&
+ test_path_is_file d/y
+ )
+'
+
+# Testcase 13e, directory rename in virtual merge base
+#
+# This testcase has a slightly different setup than all the above cases, in
+# order to include a recursive case:
+#
+# A C
+# o - o
+# / \ / \
+# O o X ?
+# \ / \ /
+# o o
+# B D
+#
+# Commit O: a/{z,y}
+# Commit A: b/{z,y}
+# Commit B: a/{z,y,x}
+# Commit C: b/{z,y,x}
+# Commit D: b/{z,y}, a/x
+# Expected: b/{z,y,x} (sort of; see below for why this might not be expected)
+#
+# NOTES: 'X' represents a virtual merge base. With the default of
+# directory rename detection yielding conflicts, merging A and B
+# results in a conflict complaining about whether 'x' should be
+# under 'a/' or 'b/'. However, when creating the virtual merge
+# base 'X', since virtual merge bases need to be written out as a
+# tree, we cannot have a conflict, so some resolution has to be
+# picked.
+#
+# In choosing the right resolution, it's worth noting here that
+# commits C & D are merges of A & B that choose different
+# locations for 'x' (i.e. they resolve the conflict differently),
+# and so it would be nice when merging C & D if git could detect
+# this difference of opinion and report a conflict. But the only
+# way to do so that I can think of would be to have the virtual
+# merge base place 'x' in some directory other than either 'a/' or
+# 'b/', which seems a little weird -- especially since it'd result
+# in a rename/rename(1to2) conflict with a source path that never
+# existed in any version.
+#
+# So, for now, when directory rename detection is set to
+# 'conflict' just avoid doing directory rename detection at all in
+# the recursive case. This will not allow us to detect a conflict
+# in the outer merge for this special kind of setup, but it at
+# least avoids hitting a BUG().
+#
+test_setup_13e () {
+ test_create_repo 13e &&
+ (
+ cd 13e &&
+
+ mkdir a &&
+ echo z >a/z &&
+ echo y >a/y &&
+ git add a &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "O" &&
+
+ git branch O &&
+ git branch A &&
+ git branch B &&
+
+ git checkout A &&
+ git mv a/ b/ &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "A" &&
+
+ git checkout B &&
+ echo x >a/x &&
+ git add a &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "B" &&
+
+ git branch C A &&
+ git branch D B &&
+
+ git checkout C &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=conflict merge B &&
+ git add b/x &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "C" &&
+
+
+ git checkout D &&
+ test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=conflict merge A &&
+ git add b/x &&
+ mkdir a &&
+ git mv b/x a/x &&
+ test_tick &&
+ git commit -m "D"
+ )
+}
+
+test_expect_success '13e: directory rename detection in recursive case' '
+ test_setup_13e &&
+ (
+ cd 13e &&
+
+ git checkout --quiet D^0 &&
+
+ git -c merge.directoryRenames=conflict merge -s recursive C^0 >out 2>err &&
+
+ test_i18ngrep ! CONFLICT out &&
+ test_i18ngrep ! BUG: err &&
+ test_i18ngrep ! core.dumped err &&
+ test_must_be_empty err &&
+
+ git ls-files >paths &&
+ ! grep a/x paths &&
+ grep b/x paths
+ )
+'
+
test_done
projects / thirdparty / git.git / blobdiff