On 10/19/2018 3:31 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
+#if 0 // #if-0-ing avoids unused function warning; will make live in next commit
+static int handle_file_collision(struct merge_options *o,
+ const char *collide_path,
+ const char *prev_path1,
+ const char *prev_path2,
+ const char *branch1, const char *branch2,
+ const struct object_id *a_oid,
+ unsigned int a_mode,
+ const struct object_id *b_oid,
+ unsigned int b_mode)
+{
+ struct merge_file_info mfi;
+ struct diff_filespec null, a, b;
+ char *alt_path = NULL;
+ const char *update_path = collide_path;
+
+ /*
+ * In the recursive case, we just opt to undo renames
+ */
+ if (o->call_depth && (prev_path1 || prev_path2)) {
+ /* Put first file (a_oid, a_mode) in its original spot */
+ if (prev_path1) {
+ if (update_file(o, 1, a_oid, a_mode, prev_path1))
+ return -1;
+ } else {
+ if (update_file(o, 1, a_oid, a_mode, collide_path))
The latest test coverage report [1] shows this if statement is never run, so
it appears that every call to this method in the test suite has either
o->call_depth positive, prev_path1 non-NULL, or both prev_path1 and
prev_path2
NULL.
Is there a way we can add a test case that calls this method with
o->call_depth
positive, prev_path1 NULL, and prev_path2 non-NULL?
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ /* Put second file (b_oid, b_mode) in its original spot */
+ if (prev_path2) {
+ if (update_file(o, 1, b_oid, b_mode, prev_path2))
Since this line is covered, we _do_ call the method with prev_path2
non-NULL, but
prev_path1 must be non-NULL in all cases.
I may have found a reason why this doesn't happen in one of the callers
you introduced.
I'm going to comment on PATCH 8/8 to see if that is the case.
Thanks,
-Stolee
[1]
https://public-inbox.org/git/62f0bcf6-aa73-c192-d804-e6d69cac146f@xxxxxxxxx/
