This test is mostly just designed for testing optimality of the virtual merge base in the event of a rename/rename(1to2) conflict. The current choice for resolving this in git seems somewhat confusing and suboptimal. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> --- Changes since v1: More thorough testing of results, usage of some of Junio's wording in a comment. t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh b/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh index acff84d..38cace6 100755 --- a/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh +++ b/t/t6036-recursive-corner-cases.sh @@ -556,4 +556,92 @@ test_expect_failure 'merge of E2 & D fails but has appropriate contents' ' test -f a~D^0 ' +# +# criss-cross with rename/rename(1to2)/modify followed by +# rename/rename(2to1)/modify: +# +# B D +# o---o +# / \ / \ +# A o X ? F +# \ / \ / +# o---o +# C E +# +# Commit A: new file: a +# Commit B: rename a->b, modifying by adding a line +# Commit C: rename a->c +# Commit D: merge B&C, resolving conflict by keeping contents in newname +# Commit E: merge B&C, resolving conflict similar to D but adding another line +# +# There is a conflict merging B & C, but one of filename not of file +# content. Whoever created D and E chose specific resolutions for that +# conflict resolution. Now, since: (1) there is no content conflict +# merging B & C, (2) D does not modify that merged content further, and (3) +# both D & E resolve the name conflict in the same way, the modification to +# newname in E should not cause any conflicts when it is merged with D. +# (Note that this can be accomplished by having the virtual merge base have +# the merged contents of b and c stored in a file named a, which seems like +# the most logical choice anyway.) +# +# Comment from Junio: I do not necessarily agree with the choice "a", but +# it feels sound to say "B and C do not agree what the final pathname +# should be, but we know this content was derived from the common A:a so we +# use one path whose name is arbitrary in the virtual merge base X between +# D and E" and then further let the rename detection to notice that that +# arbitrary path gets renamed between X-D to "newname" and X-E also to +# "newname" to resolve it as both sides renaming it to the same new +# name. It is akin to what we do at the content level, i.e. "B and C do not +# agree what the final contents should be, so we leave the conflict marker +# but that may cancel out at the final merge stage". + +test_expect_success 'setup rename/rename(1to2)/modify followed by what looks like rename/rename(2to1)/modify' ' + git reset --hard && + git rm -rf . && + git clean -fdqx && + rm -rf .git && + git init && + + printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n" >a && + git add a && + git commit -m A && + git tag A && + + git checkout -b B A && + git mv a b && + echo 7 >>b && + git add -u && + git commit -m B && + + git checkout -b C A && + git mv a c && + git commit -m C && + + git checkout -q B^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours C^0 && + git mv b newname && + git commit -m "Merge commit C^0 into HEAD" && + git tag D && + + git checkout -q C^0 && + git merge --no-commit -s ours B^0 && + git mv c newname && + printf "7\n8\n" >>newname && + git add -u && + git commit -m "Merge commit B^0 into HEAD" && + git tag E +' + +test_expect_failure 'handle rename/rename(1to2)/modify followed by what looks like rename/rename(2to1)/modify' ' + git checkout D^0 && + + git merge -s recursive E^0 && + + test 1 -eq $(git ls-files -s | wc -l) && + test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -u | wc -l) && + test 0 -eq $(git ls-files -o | wc -l) && + + test $(git rev-parse HEAD:newname) = $(git rev-parse E:newname) +' + test_done -- 1.7.6.100.gac5c1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html