On 11/2/2018 1:27 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:01 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:08 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/19/2018 3:31 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
[snip]
+ char *new_path = NULL;
+ if (dir_in_way(b->path, !o->call_depth, 0)) {
+ new_path = unique_path(o, b->path, ci->branch2);
+ output(o, 1, _("%s is a directory in %s adding "
+ "as %s instead"),
+ b->path, ci->branch1, new_path);
I tried really hard, but failed to get a test to cover the block below.
I was able to
find that the "check handling of differently renamed file with D/F
conflicts" test
in t6022-merge-rename.sh covers the block above. Trying to tweak the
example using
untracked files seems to hit an error message from unpack-trees.c instead.
+ } else if (would_lose_untracked(b->path)) {
+ new_path = unique_path(o, b->path, ci->branch2);
+ output(o, 1, _("Refusing to lose untracked file"
+ " at %s; adding as %s instead"),
+ b->path, new_path);
So now I'm confused. This block was not listed in your coverage
report[1]. And, in fact, I think this block IS covered by testcase
10c of t6043. However, there is a very similar looking block about 30
lines up that is uncovered (and which was mentioned in your report):
} else if (would_lose_untracked(a->path)) {
new_path = unique_path(o, a->path, ci->branch1);
output(o, 1, _("Refusing to lose untracked file"
" at %s; adding as %s instead"),
a->path, new_path);
covering it, I think, is just a matter of repeating the 10c test with
the merge repeated in the other direction (checkout B and merge A
instead of checking out A and merging B) -- and touching up the checks
accordingly.
However, now I'm wondering if I'm crazy. Was it really the block you
had highlighted that you were seeing uncovered?
Trust the report (generated by computer) over me (generated by squinting
at an email, trying to match line numbers).
Thanks,
-Stolee
