mirror of
https://github.com/git/git.git
synced 2025-12-12 20:36:24 +01:00
a562d90a35
At GitHub, we had a repository that was triggering git: merge-ort.c:3032: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean` failed. during git replay. This sounds similar to the somewhat recentf6ecb603ff(merge-ort: fix directory rename on top of source of other rename/delete, 2025-08-06), but the cause is different. Unlike that case, there are no rename-to-self situations arising in this case, and new to this case it can only be triggered during a replay operation on the 2nd or later commit being replayed, never on the first merge in the sequence. To trigger, the repository needs: * an upstream which: * renames a file to a different directory, e.g. old/file -> new/file * leaves other files remaining in the original directory (so that e.g. "old/" still exists upstream even though file has been removed from it and placed elsewhere) * a topic branch being rebased where: * a commit in the sequence: * modifies old/file * a subsequent commit in the sequence being replayed: * does NOT touch *anything* under new/ * does NOT touch old/file * DOES modify other paths under old/ * does NOT have any relevant renames that we need to detect _anywhere_ elsewhere in the tree (meaning this interacts interestingly with both directory renames and cached renames) In such a case, the assertion will trigger. The fix turns out to be surprisingly simple. I have a very vague recollection that I actually considered whether to add such an if-check years ago when I added the very similar one for oldinfo in1b6b902d95(merge-ort: process_renames() now needs more defensiveness, 2021-01-19), but I think I couldn't figure out a possible way to trigger it and was worried at the time that if I didn't know how to trigger it then I wasn't so sure that simply skipping it was correct. Waiting did give me a chance to put more thorough tests and checks into place for the rename-to-self cases a few months back, which I might not have found as easily otherwise. Anyway, put the check in place now and add a test that demonstrates the fix. Note that this bug, as demonstrated by the conditions listed above, runs at the intersection of relevant renames, trivial directory resolutions, and cached renames. All three of those optimizations are ones that unfortunately make the code (and testcases!) a bit more complex, and threading all three makes it a bit more so. However, the testcase isn't crazy enough that I'd expect no one to ever hit it in practice, and was confused why we didn't see it before. After some digging, I discovered that merge.directoryRenames=false is a workaround to this bug, and GitHub used that setting until recently (it was a "temporary" match-what-libgit2-does piece of code that lasted years longer than intended). Since the conditions I gave above for triggering this bug rule out the possibility of there being directory renames, one might assume that it shouldn't matter whether you try to detect such renames if there aren't any. However, due to commita16e8efe5c(merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=false, 2025-03-13), the heavy hammer used there means that merge.directoryRenames=false ALSO turns off rename caching, which is critical to triggering the bug. This becomes a bit more than an aside since... Re-reading that old commit,a16e8efe5c(merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=false, 2025-03-13), it appears that the solution to this latest bug might have been at least a partial alternative solution to that old commit. And it may have been an improved alternative (or at least help implement one), since it may be able to avoid the heavy-handed disabling of rename cache. That might be an interesting future thing to investigate, but is not critical for the current fix. However, since I spent time digging it all up, at least leave a small comment tweak breadcrumb to help some future reader (myself or others) who wants to dig further to connect the dots a little quicker. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
850 lines
24 KiB
Bash
Executable File
850 lines
24 KiB
Bash
Executable File
#!/bin/sh
|
|
|
|
test_description="remember regular & dir renames in sequence of merges"
|
|
|
|
. ./test-lib.sh
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# NOTE 1: this testfile tends to not only rename files, but modify on both
|
|
# sides; without modifying on both sides, optimizations can kick in
|
|
# which make rename detection irrelevant or trivial. We want to make
|
|
# sure that we are triggering rename caching rather than rename
|
|
# bypassing.
|
|
#
|
|
# NOTE 2: this testfile uses replay instead of either cherry-pick or rebase.
|
|
# sequencer.c is only superficially integrated with merge-ort; it
|
|
# calls merge_switch_to_result() after EACH merge, which updates the
|
|
# index and working copy AND throws away the cached results (because
|
|
# merge_switch_to_result() is only supposed to be called at the end
|
|
# of the sequence). Integrating them more deeply is a big task, so
|
|
# for now the tests use 'git replay'.
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following simple testcase:
|
|
# Base: numbers_1, values_1
|
|
# Upstream: numbers_2, values_2
|
|
# Topic_1: sequence_3
|
|
# Topic_2: scruples_3
|
|
# or, in english, rename numbers -> sequence in the first commit, and rename
|
|
# values -> scruples in the second commit.
|
|
#
|
|
# This shouldn't be a challenge, it's just verifying that cached renames isn't
|
|
# preventing us from finding new renames.
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'caching renames does not preclude finding new ones' '
|
|
git init caching-renames-and-new-renames &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd caching-renames-and-new-renames &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 2 10 >numbers &&
|
|
test_seq 2 10 >values &&
|
|
git add numbers values &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 1 10 >numbers &&
|
|
test_seq 1 10 >values &&
|
|
git add numbers values &&
|
|
git commit -m "Tweaked both files" &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 2 12 >numbers &&
|
|
git add numbers &&
|
|
git mv numbers sequence &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 2 12 >values &&
|
|
git add values &&
|
|
git mv values scruples &&
|
|
git commit -m B &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files >tracked-files &&
|
|
test_line_count = 2 tracked-files &&
|
|
test_seq 1 12 >expect &&
|
|
test_cmp expect sequence &&
|
|
test_cmp expect scruples
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following testcase:
|
|
# Base: numbers_1
|
|
# Upstream: rename numbers_1 -> sequence_2
|
|
# Topic_1: numbers_3
|
|
# Topic_2: numbers_1
|
|
# or, in english, the first commit on the topic branch modifies numbers by
|
|
# shrinking it (dramatically) and the second commit on topic reverts its
|
|
# parent.
|
|
#
|
|
# Can git apply both patches?
|
|
#
|
|
# Traditional cherry-pick/rebase will fail to apply the second commit, the
|
|
# one that reverted its parent, because despite detecting the rename from
|
|
# 'numbers' to 'sequence' for the first commit, it fails to detect that
|
|
# rename when picking the second commit. That's "reasonable" given the
|
|
# dramatic change in size of the file, but remembering the rename and
|
|
# reusing it is reasonable too.
|
|
#
|
|
# We do test here that we expect rename detection to only be run once total
|
|
# (the topic side of history doesn't need renames, and with caching we
|
|
# should be able to only run rename detection on the upstream side one
|
|
# time.)
|
|
test_expect_success 'cherry-pick both a commit and its immediate revert' '
|
|
git init pick-commit-and-its-immediate-revert &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd pick-commit-and-its-immediate-revert &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 11 30 >numbers &&
|
|
git add numbers &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 1 30 >numbers &&
|
|
git add numbers &&
|
|
git mv numbers sequence &&
|
|
git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) numbers -> sequence" &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 11 13 >numbers &&
|
|
git add numbers &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
git revert HEAD &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 1 calls
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following testcase:
|
|
# Base: sequence_1
|
|
# Upstream: rename sequence_1 -> values_2
|
|
# Topic_1: rename sequence_1 -> values_3
|
|
# Topic_2: add unrelated sequence_4
|
|
# or, in english, both sides rename sequence -> values, and then the second
|
|
# commit on the topic branch adds an unrelated file called sequence.
|
|
#
|
|
# This testcase presents no problems for git traditionally, but having both
|
|
# sides do the same rename in effect "uses it up" and if it remains cached,
|
|
# could cause a spurious rename/add conflict.
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'rename same file identically, then reintroduce it' '
|
|
git init rename-rename-1to1-then-add-old-filename &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd rename-rename-1to1-then-add-old-filename &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >sequence &&
|
|
git add sequence &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >sequence &&
|
|
git add sequence &&
|
|
git mv sequence values &&
|
|
git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) sequence -> values" &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >sequence &&
|
|
git add sequence &&
|
|
git mv sequence values &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
test_write_lines A B C D E F G H I J >sequence &&
|
|
git add sequence &&
|
|
git commit -m B &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files >tracked &&
|
|
test_line_count = 2 tracked &&
|
|
test_path_is_file values &&
|
|
test_path_is_file sequence &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 2 calls
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following testcase:
|
|
# Base: olddir/{valuesZ_1, valuesY_1, valuesX_1}
|
|
# Upstream: rename olddir/valuesZ_1 -> dirA/valuesZ_2
|
|
# rename olddir/valuesY_1 -> dirA/valuesY_2
|
|
# rename olddir/valuesX_1 -> dirB/valuesX_2
|
|
# Topic_1: rename olddir/valuesZ_1 -> dirA/valuesZ_3
|
|
# rename olddir/valuesY_1 -> dirA/valuesY_3
|
|
# Topic_2: add olddir/newfile
|
|
# Expected Pick1: dirA/{valuesZ, valuesY}, dirB/valuesX
|
|
# Expected Pick2: dirA/{valuesZ, valuesY}, dirB/{valuesX, newfile}
|
|
#
|
|
# This testcase presents no problems for git traditionally, but having both
|
|
# sides do the same renames in effect "use it up" but if the renames remain
|
|
# cached, the directory rename could put newfile in the wrong directory.
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'rename same file identically, then add file to old dir' '
|
|
git init rename-rename-1to1-then-add-file-to-old-dir &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd rename-rename-1to1-then-add-file-to-old-dir &&
|
|
|
|
mkdir olddir/ &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesZ &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesY &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesX &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesZ &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesY &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesX &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
mkdir dirA &&
|
|
git mv olddir/valuesZ olddir/valuesY dirA &&
|
|
git mv olddir/ dirB/ &&
|
|
git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) values*" &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >olddir/valuesZ &&
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >olddir/valuesY &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
mkdir dirA &&
|
|
git mv olddir/valuesZ olddir/valuesY dirA &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
>olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git add olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m B &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
git config merge.directoryRenames true &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files >tracked &&
|
|
test_line_count = 4 tracked &&
|
|
test_path_is_file dirA/valuesZ &&
|
|
test_path_is_file dirA/valuesY &&
|
|
test_path_is_file dirB/valuesX &&
|
|
test_path_is_file dirB/newfile &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 3 calls
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following testcase, upstream renames a directory, and the topic branch
|
|
# first adds a file to the directory, then later renames the directory
|
|
# differently:
|
|
# Base: olddir/a
|
|
# olddir/b
|
|
# Upstream: rename olddir/ -> newdir/
|
|
# Topic_1: add olddir/newfile
|
|
# Topic_2: rename olddir/ -> otherdir/
|
|
#
|
|
# Here we are just concerned that cached renames might prevent us from seeing
|
|
# the rename conflict, and we want to ensure that we do get a conflict.
|
|
#
|
|
# While at it, though, we do test that we only try to detect renames 2
|
|
# times and not three. (The first merge needs to detect renames on the
|
|
# upstream side. Traditionally, the second merge would need to detect
|
|
# renames on both sides of history, but our caching of upstream renames
|
|
# should avoid the need to re-detect upstream renames.)
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'cached dir rename does not prevent noticing later conflict' '
|
|
git init dir-rename-cache-not-occluding-later-conflict &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd dir-rename-cache-not-occluding-later-conflict &&
|
|
|
|
mkdir olddir &&
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >olddir/a &&
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >olddir/b &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >olddir/a &&
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >olddir/b &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git mv olddir newdir &&
|
|
git commit -m "Dir renamed" &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
>olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git add olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/a &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/b &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git mv olddir otherdir &&
|
|
git commit -m B &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
git config merge.directoryRenames true &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >output &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 2 calls
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
# Helper for the next two tests
|
|
test_setup_upstream_rename () {
|
|
git init $1 &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd $1 &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >somefile &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >relevant-rename &&
|
|
git add somefile relevant-rename &&
|
|
mkdir olddir &&
|
|
test_write_lines a b c d e f g >olddir/a &&
|
|
test_write_lines z y x w v u t >olddir/b &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >somefile &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >relevant-rename &&
|
|
git add somefile relevant-rename &&
|
|
git mv relevant-rename renamed &&
|
|
echo h >>olddir/a &&
|
|
echo s >>olddir/b &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git mv olddir newdir &&
|
|
git commit -m "Dir renamed"
|
|
)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following testcase, upstream renames a file in the toplevel directory
|
|
# as well as its only directory:
|
|
# Base: relevant-rename_1
|
|
# somefile
|
|
# olddir/a
|
|
# olddir/b
|
|
# Upstream: rename relevant-rename_1 -> renamed_2
|
|
# rename olddir/ -> newdir/
|
|
# Topic_1: relevant-rename_3
|
|
# Topic_2: olddir/newfile_1
|
|
# Topic_3: olddir/newfile_2
|
|
#
|
|
# In this testcase, since the first commit being picked only modifies a
|
|
# file in the toplevel directory, the directory rename is irrelevant for
|
|
# that first merge. However, we need to notice the directory rename for
|
|
# the merge that picks the second commit, and we don't want the third
|
|
# commit to mess up its location either. We want to make sure that
|
|
# olddir/newfile doesn't exist in the result and that newdir/newfile does.
|
|
#
|
|
# We also test that we only do rename detection twice. We never need
|
|
# rename detection on the topic side of history, but we do need it twice on
|
|
# the upstream side of history. For the first topic commit, we only need
|
|
# the
|
|
# relevant-rename -> renamed
|
|
# rename, because olddir is unmodified by Topic_1. For Topic_2, however,
|
|
# the new file being added to olddir means files that were previously
|
|
# irrelevant for rename detection are now relevant, forcing us to repeat
|
|
# rename detection for the paths we don't already have cached. Topic_3 also
|
|
# tweaks olddir/newfile, but the renames in olddir/ will have been cached
|
|
# from the second rename detection run.
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then add new file to old dir' '
|
|
test_setup_upstream_rename dir-rename-unneeded-until-new-file &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd dir-rename-unneeded-until-new-file &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >relevant-rename &&
|
|
git add relevant-rename &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
echo foo >olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git add olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m B &&
|
|
|
|
echo bar >>olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git add olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m C &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
git config merge.directoryRenames true &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 2 calls &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files >tracked &&
|
|
test_line_count = 5 tracked &&
|
|
test_path_is_missing olddir/newfile &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/newfile
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# The following testcase is *very* similar to the last one, but instead of
|
|
# adding a new olddir/newfile, it renames somefile -> olddir/newfile:
|
|
# Base: relevant-rename_1
|
|
# somefile_1
|
|
# olddir/a
|
|
# olddir/b
|
|
# Upstream: rename relevant-rename_1 -> renamed_2
|
|
# rename olddir/ -> newdir/
|
|
# Topic_1: relevant-rename_3
|
|
# Topic_2: rename somefile -> olddir/newfile_2
|
|
# Topic_3: modify olddir/newfile_3
|
|
#
|
|
# In this testcase, since the first commit being picked only modifies a
|
|
# file in the toplevel directory, the directory rename is irrelevant for
|
|
# that first merge. However, we need to notice the directory rename for
|
|
# the merge that picks the second commit, and we don't want the third
|
|
# commit to mess up its location either. We want to make sure that
|
|
# neither somefile or olddir/newfile exists in the result and that
|
|
# newdir/newfile does.
|
|
#
|
|
# This testcase needs one more call to rename detection than the last
|
|
# testcase, because of the somefile -> olddir/newfile rename in Topic_2.
|
|
test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then rename existing file into old dir' '
|
|
test_setup_upstream_rename dir-rename-unneeded-until-file-moved-inside &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd dir-rename-unneeded-until-file-moved-inside &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >relevant-rename &&
|
|
git add relevant-rename &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 1 10 >somefile &&
|
|
git add somefile &&
|
|
git mv somefile olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m B &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 1 12 >olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git add olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m C &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
git config merge.directoryRenames true &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 3 calls &&
|
|
|
|
test_path_is_missing somefile &&
|
|
test_path_is_missing olddir/newfile &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/newfile &&
|
|
git ls-files >tracked &&
|
|
test_line_count = 4 tracked
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
# Helper for the next two tests
|
|
test_setup_topic_rename () {
|
|
git init $1 &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd $1 &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >somefile &&
|
|
mkdir olddir &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >olddir/a &&
|
|
echo b >olddir/b &&
|
|
git add olddir somefile &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >somefile &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/a &&
|
|
git add somefile olddir/a &&
|
|
git mv olddir newdir &&
|
|
git commit -m "Dir renamed" &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 1 10 >somefile &&
|
|
git add somefile &&
|
|
mkdir olddir &&
|
|
>olddir/unrelated-file &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git commit -m "Unrelated file in recreated old dir"
|
|
)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following testcase, the first commit on the topic branch renames
|
|
# a directory, while the second recreates the old directory and places a
|
|
# file into it:
|
|
# Base: somefile
|
|
# olddir/a
|
|
# olddir/b
|
|
# Upstream: olddir/newfile
|
|
# Topic_1: somefile_2
|
|
# rename olddir/ -> newdir/
|
|
# Topic_2: olddir/unrelated-file
|
|
#
|
|
# Note that the first pick should merge:
|
|
# Base: somefile
|
|
# olddir/{a,b}
|
|
# Upstream: olddir/newfile
|
|
# Topic_1: rename olddir/ -> newdir/
|
|
# For which the expected result (assuming merge.directoryRenames=true) is
|
|
# clearly:
|
|
# Result: somefile
|
|
# newdir/{a, b, newfile}
|
|
#
|
|
# While the second pick does the following three-way merge:
|
|
# Base (Topic_1): somefile
|
|
# newdir/{a,b}
|
|
# Upstream (Result from 1): same files as base, but adds newdir/newfile
|
|
# Topic_2: same files as base, but adds olddir/unrelated-file
|
|
#
|
|
# The second merge is pretty trivial; upstream adds newdir/newfile, and
|
|
# topic_2 adds olddir/unrelated-file. We're just testing that we don't
|
|
# accidentally cache directory renames somehow and rename
|
|
# olddir/unrelated-file to newdir/unrelated-file.
|
|
#
|
|
# This testcase should only need one call to diffcore_rename_extended().
|
|
test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 1' '
|
|
test_setup_topic_rename cache-renames-only-upstream-add-file &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd cache-renames-only-upstream-add-file &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
|
|
>olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git add olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m "Add newfile" &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
|
|
git config merge.directoryRenames true &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 1 calls &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files >tracked &&
|
|
test_line_count = 5 tracked &&
|
|
test_path_is_missing newdir/unrelated-file &&
|
|
test_path_is_file olddir/unrelated-file &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/newfile &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/b &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/a &&
|
|
test_path_is_file somefile
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# The following testcase is *very* similar to the last one, but instead of
|
|
# adding a new olddir/newfile, it renames somefile -> olddir/newfile:
|
|
# Base: somefile
|
|
# olddir/a
|
|
# olddir/b
|
|
# Upstream: somefile_1 -> olddir/newfile
|
|
# Topic_1: rename olddir/ -> newdir/
|
|
# somefile_2
|
|
# Topic_2: olddir/unrelated-file
|
|
# somefile_3
|
|
#
|
|
# Much like the previous test, this case is actually trivial and we are just
|
|
# making sure there isn't some spurious directory rename caching going on
|
|
# for the wrong side of history.
|
|
#
|
|
#
|
|
# This testcase should only need two calls to diffcore_rename_extended(),
|
|
# both for the first merge, one for each side of history.
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 2' '
|
|
test_setup_topic_rename cache-renames-only-upstream-rename-file &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd cache-renames-only-upstream-rename-file &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
|
|
git mv somefile olddir/newfile &&
|
|
git commit -m "Add newfile" &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
|
|
git config merge.directoryRenames true &&
|
|
|
|
GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" &&
|
|
export GIT_TRACE2_PERF &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls &&
|
|
test_line_count = 2 calls &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files >tracked &&
|
|
test_line_count = 4 tracked &&
|
|
test_path_is_missing newdir/unrelated-file &&
|
|
test_path_is_file olddir/unrelated-file &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/newfile &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/b &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/a
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# The following testcase just creates two simple renames (slightly modified
|
|
# on both sides but without conflicting changes), and a directory full of
|
|
# files that are otherwise uninteresting. The setup is as follows:
|
|
#
|
|
# base: unrelated/<BUNCH OF FILES>
|
|
# numbers
|
|
# values
|
|
# upstream: modify: numbers
|
|
# modify: values
|
|
# topic: add: unrelated/foo
|
|
# modify: numbers
|
|
# modify: values
|
|
# rename: numbers -> sequence
|
|
# rename: values -> progression
|
|
#
|
|
# This is a trivial rename case, but we're curious what happens with a very
|
|
# low renameLimit interacting with the restart optimization trying to notice
|
|
# that unrelated/ looks like a trivial merge candidate.
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'avoid assuming we detected renames' '
|
|
git init redo-weirdness &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd redo-weirdness &&
|
|
|
|
mkdir unrelated &&
|
|
for i in $(test_seq 1 10)
|
|
do
|
|
>unrelated/$i || exit 1
|
|
done &&
|
|
test_seq 2 10 >numbers &&
|
|
test_seq 12 20 >values &&
|
|
git add numbers values unrelated/ &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 1 10 >numbers &&
|
|
test_seq 11 20 >values &&
|
|
git add numbers &&
|
|
git commit -m "Some tweaks" &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
>unrelated/foo &&
|
|
test_seq 2 12 >numbers &&
|
|
test_seq 12 22 >values &&
|
|
git add numbers values unrelated/ &&
|
|
git mv numbers sequence &&
|
|
git mv values progression &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch --detach topic^0 &&
|
|
|
|
test_must_fail git -c merge.renameLimit=1 rebase upstream &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files -u >actual &&
|
|
test_line_count = 2 actual
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# In the following testcase:
|
|
# Base: olddir/{valuesX_1, valuesY_1, valuesZ_1}
|
|
# other/content
|
|
# Upstream: rename olddir/valuesX_1 -> newdir/valuesX_2
|
|
# Topic_1: modify olddir/valuesX_1 -> olddir/valuesX_3
|
|
# Topic_2: modify olddir/valuesY,
|
|
# modify other/content
|
|
# Expected Pick1: olddir/{valuesY, valuesZ}, newdir/valuesX, other/content
|
|
# Expected Pick2: olddir/{valuesY, valuesZ}, newdir/valuesX, other/content
|
|
#
|
|
# This testcase presents no problems for git traditionally, but the fact that
|
|
# olddir/valuesX -> newdir/valuesX
|
|
# gets cached after the first pick presents a problem for the second commit to
|
|
# be replayed, because it appears to be an irrelevant rename, so the trivial
|
|
# directory resolution will resolve newdir/ without recursing into it, giving
|
|
# us no way to apply the cached rename to anything.
|
|
#
|
|
test_expect_success 'rename a file, use it on first pick, but irrelevant on second' '
|
|
git init rename_a_file_use_it_once_irrelevant_on_second &&
|
|
(
|
|
cd rename_a_file_use_it_once_irrelevant_on_second &&
|
|
|
|
mkdir olddir/ other/ &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesX &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesY &&
|
|
test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesZ &&
|
|
printf "%s\n" A B C D E F G >other/content &&
|
|
git add olddir other &&
|
|
git commit -m orig &&
|
|
|
|
git branch upstream &&
|
|
git branch topic &&
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesX &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
mkdir newdir &&
|
|
git mv olddir/valuesX newdir &&
|
|
git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) olddir/valuesX into newdir/" &&
|
|
|
|
git switch topic &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 3 10 >olddir/valuesX &&
|
|
git add olddir &&
|
|
git commit -m A &&
|
|
|
|
test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesY &&
|
|
printf "%s\n" A B C D E F G H I >other/content &&
|
|
git add olddir/valuesY other &&
|
|
git commit -m B &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# Actual testing; mostly we want to verify that we do not hit
|
|
# git: merge-ort.c:3032: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean` failed.
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git switch upstream &&
|
|
git config merge.directoryRenames true &&
|
|
|
|
git replay --onto HEAD upstream~1..topic >out &&
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
# ...but we may as well check that the replay gave us a reasonable result
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
git update-ref --stdin <out &&
|
|
git checkout topic &&
|
|
|
|
git ls-files >tracked &&
|
|
test_line_count = 4 tracked &&
|
|
test_path_is_file newdir/valuesX &&
|
|
test_path_is_file olddir/valuesY &&
|
|
test_path_is_file olddir/valuesZ &&
|
|
test_path_is_file other/content
|
|
)
|
|
'
|
|
|
|
test_done
|