diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rwxr-xr-x | t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh | 767 |
1 files changed, 767 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000..d02fa16 --- /dev/null +++ b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh @@ -0,0 +1,767 @@ +#!/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 'test-tool fast-rebase' 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 'test-tool fast-rebase'. +# + + +# +# 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 && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream~1..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="$(pwd)/trace.output" && + export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream~1..topic && + + grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && + test_line_count = 1 calls + ) +' + +# +# In the following testcase: +# Base: sequence_1 +# Upstream: rename sequence_1 -> values_2 +# Topic_1: rename sequence_1 -> values_3 +# Topic_2: add unrelated sequence_4 +# or, in english, both sides rename sequence -> values, and then the second +# commit on the topic branch adds an unrelated file called sequence. +# +# This testcase presents no problems for git traditionally, but having both +# sides do the same rename in effect "uses it up" and if it remains cached, +# could cause a spurious rename/add conflict. +# +test_expect_success 'rename same file identically, then reintroduce it' ' + git init rename-rename-1to1-then-add-old-filename && + ( + cd rename-rename-1to1-then-add-old-filename && + + test_seq 3 8 >sequence && + git add sequence && + git commit -m orig && + + git branch upstream && + git branch topic && + + git switch upstream && + test_seq 1 8 >sequence && + git add sequence && + git mv sequence values && + git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) sequence -> values" && + + git switch topic && + + test_seq 3 10 >sequence && + git add sequence && + git mv sequence values && + git commit -m A && + + test_write_lines A B C D E F G H I J >sequence && + git add sequence && + git commit -m B && + + # + # Actual testing + # + + git switch upstream && + + GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && + export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream~1..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 && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream~1..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 test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic >output && + #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && + + grep CONFLICT..rename/rename 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 && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream..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 && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream..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 && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream..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 && + + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + #git cherry-pick upstream..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 + ) +' + +test_done |