On 12/10/2019 02:36, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 10/11/2019 12:50 PM, James Coglan wrote: >> On 10/10/2019 18:19, Derrick Stolee wrote: >>> On 10/10/2019 12:13 PM, James Coglan via GitGitGadget wrote: >>>> +++ b/t/t4215-log-skewed-merges.sh >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ >>>> +#!/bin/sh >>>> + >>>> +test_description='git log --graph of skewed merges' >>>> + >>>> +. ./test-lib.sh >>>> + >>>> +test_expect_success 'setup left-skewed merge' ' >>> >>> >>> Could you skew this example to include a left-skewed octopus merge >>> (and use fewer Git processes) with the following: >>> >>> git checkout --orphan _a && test_commit A && >>> git switch -c _b _a && test_commit B && >>> git switch -c _c _a && test_commit C && >>> git switch -c _d _a && test_commit D && git switch -c _e _b && git merge --no-ff _c _d E && >>> git switch -c _f _a && git merge --no-ff _d -m F && git checkout _a && git merge --no-ff _b _c _e _f -m G >>> and I think the resulting output will be: >>> >>> *-----. G >>> |\ \ \ \ >>> | | | | * F >>> | |_|_|/| >>> |/| | | | >>> | | | * | E >>> | |_|/|\| >>> |/| | | | >>> | | |/ * D >>> | |_|__/ >>> |/| | >>> | | * C >>> | |/ >>> |/| >>> | * B >>> |/ >>> * A >> >> At this point in the history, commit E won't render like that -- this is before the change that flattens edges that fuse with the merge's last parent. I think the display of this history at this point will be: >> >> *-----. G >> |\ \ \ \ >> | | | | * F >> | |_|_|/| >> |/| | | | >> | | | * | E >> | |_|/|\ \ >> |/| |/ / / >> | | | | / >> | | | |/ >> | | | * D >> | |_|/ >> |/| | >> | | * C >> | |/ >> |/| >> | * B >> |/ >> * A >> >> Is there a particular reason for wanting to include this test case? What particular combination of states is it designed to test? (My guess is that it includes an octopus merge where the original test does not.) I'd be happy to add it at the appropriate point in the history if it's adding coverage not provided by the other tests. > > Thanks for correcting my test case. It also helps that you would show the change in behavior in your later commits. > > My reason to include this test is because it includes a regular merge and an octopus merge, both of which have a skewed render. Many times logic that applies to a normal merge breaks with octopus merges, so I try to include them whenever possible. Thanks, I've now incorporated your suggested test into my patch. I had to amend it slightly as it turns out the above history is not valid; G is not a possible merge because one of its parents (C) is an ancestor of another (E). The actual example I've added is this: *-----. 0_H |\ \ \ \ | | | | * 0_G | |_|_|/| |/| | | | | | | * \ 0_F | |_|/|\ \ |/| | | |/ | | | | * 0_E | |_|_|/ |/| | | | | * | 0_D | | |/ | | * 0_C | |/ |/| | * 0_B |/ * 0_A I've also added another commit before beginning this work that adds the example from the cover letter, so you can see it changing with each commit, namely this history: * H |\ | * G | |\ | | * F | | | | | \ | *-. \ E | |\ \ \ |/ / / / | | | / | | |/ | | * D | * | C | |/ * | B |/ * A
