On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Elijah Newren <[email protected]> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <[email protected]>
> ---
> t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 371
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 371 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
> b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
> index 115d0d2622..bdfd943c88 100755
> --- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
> +++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
> @@ -1683,4 +1683,375 @@ test_expect_failure '7e-check: transitive rename in
> rename/delete AND dirs in th
> test $(git hash-object y/d~C^0) = $(git rev-parse A:x/d)
> '
>
> +
> +###########################################################################
> +# SECTION 8: Suboptimal merges
> +#
> +# As alluded to in the last section, the ruleset we have built up for
> +# detecting directory renames unfortunately has some special cases where it
> +# results in slightly suboptimal or non-intuitive behavior. This section
> +# explores these cases.
> +#
> +# To be fair, we already had non-intuitive or suboptimal behavior for most
> +# of these cases in git before introducing implicit directory rename
> +# detection, but it'd be nice if there was a modified ruleset out there
> +# that handled these cases a bit better.
> +###########################################################################
> +
> +# Testcase 8a, Dual-directory rename, one into the others' way
> +# Commit A. x/{a,b}, y/{c,d}
> +# Commit B. x/{a,b,e}, y/{c,d,f}
> +# Commit C. y/{a,b}, z/{c,d}
> +#
> +# Possible Resolutions:
> +# Previous git: y/{a,b,f}, z/{c,d}, x/e
> +# Expected: y/{a,b,e,f}, z/{c,d}
> +# Preferred: y/{a,b,e}, z/{c,d,f}
it might be tricky in the future to know what "previous git" is;
"Previous git" means without directory renames enabled;
"expected" means we expect the algorithm presented in this series to produce
this output, preferred is what we actually expect.
> +#
> +# Note: Both x and y got renamed and it'd be nice to detect both, and we do
> +# better with directory rename detection than git did previously, but the
> +# simple rule from section 5 prevents me from handling this as optimally as
> +# we potentially could.
which were:
If a subset of to-be-renamed files have a file or directory in the way,
"turn off" the directory rename for those specific sub-paths, falling
back to old handling. But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b.
The tricky part is y in this example as x,y "swapped" its content in C,
and moved 'old y content' to the new z/.
Makes sense, but I agree it might be painful to debug such a case
from a users point of view.
> +
> +# Testcase 8b, Dual-directory rename, one into the others' way, with
> conflicting filenames
> +# Commit A. x/{a_1,b_1}, y/{a_2,b_2}
> +# Commit B. x/{a_1,b_1,e_1}, y/{a_2,b_2,e_2}
> +# Commit C. y/{a_1,b_1}, z/{a_2,b_2}
> +#
> +# Possible Resolutions:
> +# Previous git: y/{a_1,b_1,e_2}, z/{a_2,b_2}, x/e_1
> +# Scary: y/{a_1,b_1}, z/{a_2,b_2}, CONFLICT(add/add, e_1 vs.
> e_2)
> +# Preferred: y/{a_1,b_1,e_1}, z/{a_2,b_2,e_2}
It may be common to have sub directories with the same path having different
blobs, e.g. when having say multiple hardware configurations in different sub
directories configured. Then renaming becomes a pain when they overlap.
> +# Note: Very similar to 8a, except instead of 'e' and 'f' in directories x
> and
> +# y, both are named 'e'. Without directory rename detection, neither file
> +# moves directories. Implment directory rename detection suboptimally, and
Implement
> +# you get an add/add conflict, but both files were added in commit B, so this
> +# is an add/add conflict where one side of history added both files --
> +# something we can't represent in the index. Obviously, we'd prefer the last
> +# resolution, but our previous rules are too coarse to allow it. Using both
> +# the rules from section 4 and section 5 save us from the Scary resolution,
> +# making us fall back to pre-directory-rename-detection behavior for both
> +# e_1 and e_2.
ok, so add "Expected" as well? (repeating "Previous git", or so?)
> +
> +# Testcase 8c, rename+modify/delete
> +# (Related to testcases 5b and 8d)
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c,d}
> +# Commit B: y/{b,c}
> +# Commit C: z/{b,c,d_modified,e}
> +# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename+modify/delete: x/d -> y/d or
> deleted)
> +#
> +# Note: This testcase doesn't present any concerns for me...until you
> +# compare it with testcases 5b and 8d. See notes in 8d for more
> +# details.
Makes sense.
> +# Testcase 8d, rename/delete...or not?
> +# (Related to testcase 5b; these may appear slightly inconsistent to users;
> +# Also related to testcases 7d and 7e)
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c,d}
> +# Commit B: y/{b,c}
> +# Commit C: z/{b,c,d,e}
> +# Expected: y/{b,c,e}
Why this?
* d is deleted in B and not found in the result
* the rename detection also worked well in z->y for adding e
I do not see the confusion, yet.
> +# Note: It would also be somewhat reasonable to resolve this as
> +# y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted)
> +# The logic being that the only difference between this testcase and 8c
> +# is that there is no modification to d. That suggests that instead of a
> +# rename/modify vs. delete conflict, we should just have a rename/delete
> +# conflict, otherwise we are being inconsistent.
> +#
> +# However...as far as consistency goes, we didn't report a conflict for
> +# path d_1 in testcase 5b due to a different file being in the way. So,
> +# we seem to be forced to have cases where users can change things
> +# slightly and get what they may perceive as inconsistent results. It
> +# would be nice to avoid that, but I'm not sure I see how.
> +#
> +# In this case, I'm leaning towards: commit B was the one that deleted z/d
> +# and it did the rename of z to y, so the two "conflicts" (rename vs.
> +# delete) are both coming from commit B, which is non-sensical. Conflicts
> +# during merging are supposed to be about opposite sides doing things
> +# differently.
"Sensical has not yet become an "official" word in the English language, which
would be why you can't use it. Nonsense is a word, therefore nonsensical can
used to describe something of nonsense. However, sense has different meanings
and doesn't have an adjective for something of sense"
from https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38582/antonym-of-nonsensical
I don't mind it, the spell checker just made me go on a detour. Maybe illogical?
> +# Testcase 8e, Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory
> +# Commit A: z/{b,c}
> +# Commit B: y/{b,c}
> +# Commit C: w/{b,c}, z/d
> +#
> +# Possible Resolutions:
> +# Previous git: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs.
> w/c)
> +# Expected: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs.
> w/c)
> +# Preferred: ??
> +#
> +# Notes: In commit B, directory z got renamed to y. In commit C, directory z
> +# did NOT get renamed; the directory is still present; instead it is
> +# considered to have just renamed a subset of paths in directory z
> +# elsewhere. Therefore, the directory rename done in commit B to z/
> +# applies to z/d and maps it to y/d.
> +#
> +# It's possible that users would get confused about this, but what
> +# should we do instead? Silently leaving at z/d seems just as bad or
> +# maybe even worse. Perhaps we could print a big warning about z/d
> +# and how we're moving to y/d in this case, but when I started
> thinking
> +# abouty the ramifications of doing that, I didn't know how to rule
> out
> +# that opening other weird edge and corner cases so I just punted.
s/about/abouty
It sort of makes sense from a users POV.
