t6416, t6423: clarify some comments and fix some typos
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Elijah Newren committed
Aug 10, 2020 at 22:29 UTC
6c74948f2065bcab445a2db6d489147f84c73a53
2 files changed
+13
-14
t/t6416-recursive-corner-cases.sh
+1
-1
@@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git detects conflict merging criss-cross+modify/delete, rev
452
#
453
# So choice 5 at least provides some kind of conflict for the original case,
454
# and can merge cleanly as expected with D1 and E3. It also made things just
455
-# slightly funny for merging D1 and e$, where E4 is defined as:
455
+# slightly funny for merging D1 and E4, where E4 is defined as:
456
# Commit E4: Merge B & C, modifying 'a' and renaming to 'a2', and deleting 'a/'
457
# in this case, we'll get a rename/rename(1to2) conflict because a~$UNIQUE
458
# gets renamed to 'a' in D1 and to 'a2' in E4. But that's better than having
t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
+12
-13
@@ -2260,24 +2260,23 @@ test_expect_success '8d: rename/delete...or not?' '
2260
# Commit B: w/{b,c}, z/d
2261
#
2262
# Possible Resolutions:
2263
-# w/o dir-rename detection: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
2264
-# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
2265
-# Currently expected: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
2266
-# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
2267
-# Optimal: ??
2263
+# if z not considered renamed: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
2264
+# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
2265
+# if z->y rename considered: y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
2266
+# CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
2267
+# Optimal: ??
2268
#
2269
# Notes: In commit A, directory z got renamed to y. In commit B, directory z
2270
# did NOT get renamed; the directory is still present; instead it is
2271
# considered to have just renamed a subset of paths in directory z
2272
-# elsewhere. Therefore, the directory rename done in commit A to z/
2273
-# applies to z/d and maps it to y/d.
2272
+# elsewhere. However, this is much like testcase 6b (where commit B
2273
+# moves all the original paths out of z/ but opted to keep d
2274
+# within z/). This makes it hard to judge where d should end up.
2275
#
2276
# It's possible that users would get confused about this, but what
2276
-# should we do instead? Silently leaving at z/d seems just as bad or
2277
-# maybe even worse. Perhaps we could print a big warning about z/d
2278
-# and how we're moving to y/d in this case, but when I started thinking
2279
-# about the ramifications of doing that, I didn't know how to rule out
2280
-# that opening other weird edge and corner cases so I just punted.
2277
+# should we do instead? It's not at all clear to me whether z/d or
2278
+# y/d or something else is a better resolution here, and other cases
2279
+# start getting really tricky, so I just picked one.
2280
2281
test_setup_8e () {
2282
test_create_repo 8e &&
@@ -4405,7 +4404,7 @@ test_expect_success '13b(info): messages for transitive rename with conflicted c
4404
# Commit O: z/{b,c}, x/{d,e}
4405
# Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, x/e
4406
# Commit B: z/{b,c,d}, x/e
4408
-# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, with info or conflict messages for d (
4407
+# Expected: y/{b,c,d}, x/e, with info or conflict messages for d
4408
# A: renamed x/d -> z/d; B: renamed z/ -> y/ AND renamed x/d to y/d
4409
# One could argue A had partial knowledge of what was done with
4410
# d and B had full knowledge, but that's a slippery slope as