On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 283 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 283 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
> index d15153c652..157299105f 100755
> --- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
> +++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
> @@ -1053,4 +1053,287 @@ test_expect_failure '5d-check: Directory/file/file conflict due to directory ren
> # back to old handling. But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b.
> ###########################################################################
>
> +
> +###########################################################################
> +# SECTION 6: Same side of the merge was the one that did the rename
> +#
> +# It may sound obvious that you only want to apply implicit directory
> +# renames to directories if the _other_ side of history did the renaming.
> +# If you did make an implementation that didn't explicitly enforce this
> +# rule, the majority of cases that would fall under this section would
> +# also be solved by following the rules from the above sections. But
> +# there are still a few that stick out, so this section covers them just
> +# to make sure we also get them right.
> +###########################################################################
> +
> +# Testcase 6a, Tricky rename/delete
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c,d}
> +# Commit B: z/b
> +# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/d
> +# Expected: y/b, CONFLICT(rename/delete, z/c -> y/c vs. NULL)
> +# Note: We're just checking here that the rename of z/b and z/c to put
> +# them under y/ doesn't accidentally catch z/d and make it look like
> +# it is also involved in a rename/delete conflict.
> +
> +
> +# Testcase 6b, Same rename done on both sides
> +# (Related to testcases 6c and 8e)
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c}
> +# Commit B: y/{b,c}
> +# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/d
Missing expected state
> +# Note: If we did directory rename detection here, we'd move z/d into y/,
> +# but C did that rename and still decided to put the file into z/,
> +# so we probably shouldn't apply directory rename detection for it.
correct. Also we don't want to see a rename/rename conflict (obviously).
If we have
Commit A: z/{b_1,c}
Commit B: y/{b_2,c}
Commit C: y/{b_3,c}, z/d
then we'd produce a standard file merge (which may or may not result
in conflict,
depending on touched lines) for y/b_{try-resolve}
> +
> +# Testcase 6c, Rename only done on same side
> +# (Related to testcases 6b and 8e)
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c}
> +# Commit B: z/{b,c} (no change)
> +# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/d
> +# Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d
> +# NOTE: Seems obvious, but just checking that the implementation doesn't
> +# "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.
makes sense.
> +
> +# Testcase 6d, We don't always want transitive renaming
> +# (Related to testcase 1c)
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c}, x/d
> +# Commit B: z/{b,c}, x/d (no change)
> +# Commit C: y/{b,c}, z/d
> +# Expected: y/{b,c}, z/d
> +# NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation
> +# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c,d}.
makes sense, too.
> +# Testcase 6e, Add/add from one-side
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c}
> +# Commit B: z/{b,c} (no change)
> +# Commit C: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2
> +# Expected: y/{b,c,d_1}, z/d_2
> +# NOTE: Again, this seems obvious but just checking that the implementation
> +# doesn't "accidentally detect a rename" and give us y/{b,c} +
> +# add/add conflict on y/d_1 vs y/d_2.
What is less obvious in all these cases is the "(no change)" part to me.
I would think that at least *something* changes in B in all cases above, maybe
add file u/r (un-related) to have the tree ids changed?
("Less obvious" as in: we don't rely on the "no changes" part to make
the decision,
which sounds tempting so far)
> test_done
No conclusion box here, so my (misguided) suggestion:
If "No change" occurs, just take the other side. ;)
