On 12/27/2021 7:20 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ever since commit a492d5331c ("merge-ort: ensure we consult df_conflict
> and path_conflicts", 2021-06-30), when renormalization is active AND a
> file is involved in a rename/delete conflict BUT the file is unmodified
> (either before or after renormalization), merge-ort was running into an
> assertion failure.
This "the file is unmodified" is critical, as when I looked at the test,
it seemed too simple. I asked myself, "Why does renormalization matter
here?" Turns out it is just an artifact of the carefully organized cases.
> if (opt->renormalize &&
> blob_unchanged(opt, &ci->stages[0], &ci->stages[side],
> path)) {
> - ci->merged.is_null = 1;
> - ci->merged.clean = 1;
> - assert(!ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict);
> + if (!ci->path_conflict) {
> + /*
> + * Blob unchanged after renormalization, so
> + * there's no modify/delete conflict after all;
> + * we can just remove the file.
> + */
> + ci->merged.is_null = 1;
> + ci->merged.clean = 1;
> + /*
> + * file goes away => even if there was a
> + * directory/file conflict there isn't one now.
> + */
> + ci->df_conflict = 0;
> + } else {
> + /* rename/delete, so conflict remains */
> + }
This breakdown of the cases is informative, and I like how self-contained
the change is.
> +test_expect_success 'rename/delete vs. renormalization' '
> + git init subrepo &&
> + (
> + cd subrepo &&
> + echo foo >oldfile &&
> + git add oldfile &&
> + git commit -m original &&
> +
> + git branch rename &&
> + git branch nuke &&
> +
> + git checkout rename &&
> + git mv oldfile newfile &&
> + git commit -m renamed &&
> +
> + git checkout nuke &&
> + git rm oldfile &&
> + git commit -m deleted &&
> +
> + git checkout rename^0 &&
> + test_must_fail git -c merge.renormalize=true merge nuke >out &&
> +
> + grep "rename/delete" out
> + )
> +'
> +
> test_done
I tested this on the latest 'master' and saw the following:
git: merge-ort.c:3846: process_entry: Assertion `!ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict' failed
so it indeed hits this case.
This patch looks good to me. Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
