tests/merge/workdir/recursive.c


Log

Author Commit Date CI Message
Edward Thomson f0e693b1 2021-09-07T17:53:49 str: introduce `git_str` for internal, `git_buf` is external libgit2 has two distinct requirements that were previously solved by `git_buf`. We require: 1. A general purpose string class that provides a number of utility APIs for manipulating data (eg, concatenating, truncating, etc). 2. A structure that we can use to return strings to callers that they can take ownership of. By using a single class (`git_buf`) for both of these purposes, we have confused the API to the point that refactorings are difficult and reasoning about correctness is also difficult. Move the utility class `git_buf` to be called `git_str`: this represents its general purpose, as an internal string buffer class. The name also is an homage to Junio Hamano ("gitstr"). The public API remains `git_buf`, and has a much smaller footprint. It is generally only used as an "out" param with strict requirements that follow the documentation. (Exceptions exist for some legacy APIs to avoid breaking callers unnecessarily.) Utility functions exist to convert a user-specified `git_buf` to a `git_str` so that we can call internal functions, then converting it back again.
Patrick Steinhardt ecf4f33a 2018-02-08T11:14:48 Convert usage of `git_buf_free` to new `git_buf_dispose`
Edward Thomson b924df1e 2018-01-21T18:05:45 merge: reverse merge bases for recursive merge When the commits being merged have multiple merge bases, reverse the order when creating the virtual merge base. This is for compatibility with git's merge-recursive algorithm, and ensures that we build identical trees. Git does this to try to use older merge bases first. Per 8918b0c: > It seems to be the only sane way to do it: when a two-head merge is > done, and the merge-base and one of the two branches agree, the > merge assumes that the other branch has something new. > > If we start creating virtual commits from newer merge-bases, and go > back to older merge-bases, and then merge with newer commits again, > chances are that a patch is lost, _because_ the merge-base and the > head agree on it. Unlikely, yes, but it happened to me.
Edward Thomson 185b0d08 2018-01-20T19:41:28 merge: recursive uses larger conflict markers Git uses longer conflict markers in the recursive merge base - two more than the default (thus, 9 character long conflict markers). This allows users to tell the difference between the recursive merge conflicts and conflicts between the ours and theirs branches. This was introduced in git d694a17986a28bbc19e2a6c32404ca24572e400f. Update our tests to expect this as well.
Edward Thomson 78859c63 2015-11-20T17:33:49 merge: handle conflicts in recursive base building When building a recursive merge base, allow conflicts to occur. Use the file (with conflict markers) as the common ancestor. The user has already seen and dealt with this conflict by virtue of having a criss-cross merge. If they resolved this conflict identically in both branches, then there will be no conflict in the result. This is the best case scenario. If they did not resolve the conflict identically in the two branches, then we will generate a new conflict. If the user is simply using standard conflict output then the results will be fairly sensible. But if the user is using a mergetool or using diff3 output, then the common ancestor will be a conflict file (itself with diff3 output, haha!). This is quite terrible, but it matches git's behavior.
Edward Thomson 651bfd69 2015-11-09T08:24:47 recursive: test conflict output during recursive merge