Merge branch 'en/merge-tests' into next

Updates to "git merge" tests, in preparation for a new merge
strategy backend.

* en/merge-tests:
  t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages
  t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames
  t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames
  t6423: add an explanation about why one of the tests does not pass
  t6416, t6423: clarify some comments and fix some typos
  t6422: fix multiple errors with the mod6 test expectations
  t6423: fix test setup for a couple tests
  t6416, t6422: fix incorrect untracked file count
  t6422: fix bad check against missing file
  t6418: tighten delete/normalize conflict testcase
  Collect merge-related tests to t64xx

Author: gitster

t/t6020-merge-df.sh renamed to t/t6400-merge-df.sh

@@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git detects conflict merging criss-cross+modify/delete, rev
 #
 # So choice 5 at least provides some kind of conflict for the original case,
 # and can merge cleanly as expected with D1 and E3.  It also made things just
-# slightly funny for merging D1 and e$, where E4 is defined as:
+# slightly funny for merging D1 and E4, where E4 is defined as:
 #   Commit E4: Merge B & C, modifying 'a' and renaming to 'a2', and deleting 'a/'
 # in this case, we'll get a rename/rename(1to2) conflict because a~$UNIQUE
 # gets renamed to 'a' in D1 and to 'a2' in E4.  But that's better than having
@@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ test_expect_failure 'check symlink add/add' '
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive E^0 &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >out &&
-		test_line_count = 2 out &&
+		test_line_count = 3 out &&
 		git ls-files -u >out &&
 		test_line_count = 2 out &&
 		git ls-files -o >out &&

t/t6021-merge-criss-cross.sh renamed to t/t6401-merge-criss-cross.sh

@@ -197,7 +197,8 @@ test_expect_success 'Test delete/normalize conflict' '
 	git commit -m "remove file" &&
 	git checkout master &&
 	git reset --hard a^ &&
-	git merge side
+	git merge side &&
+	test_path_is_missing file
 '
 
 test_done

t/t6022-merge-rename.sh renamed to t/t6402-merge-rename.sh

@@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ test_expect_success 'handle rename-with-content-merge vs. add' '
 		git checkout A^0 &&
 
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/add)" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (.*/add)" out &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >out &&
 		test_line_count = 2 out &&
@@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ test_expect_success 'handle rename-with-content-merge vs. add, merge other way'
 		git checkout B^0 &&
 
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive A^0 >out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/add)" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (.*/add)" out &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >out &&
 		test_line_count = 2 out &&
@@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ test_expect_success 'handle rename/rename (2to1) conflict correctly' '
 		git checkout B^0 &&
 
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive C^0 >out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (\(.*\)/\1)" out &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >out &&
 		test_line_count = 2 out &&
@@ -886,27 +886,32 @@ test_expect_failure 'rad-check: rename/add/delete conflict' '
 		git checkout B^0 &&
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive A^0 >out 2>err &&
 
-		# Not sure whether the output should contain just one
-		# "CONFLICT (rename/add/delete)" line, or if it should break
-		# it into a pair of "CONFLICT (rename/delete)" and
-		# "CONFLICT (rename/add)"; allow for either.
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename.*add)" out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename.*delete)" out &&
+		# Instead of requiring the output to contain one combined line
+		#   CONFLICT (rename/add/delete)
+		# or perhaps two lines:
+		#   CONFLICT (rename/add): new file collides with rename target
+		#   CONFLICT (rename/delete): rename source removed on other side
+		# and instead of requiring "rename/add" instead of "add/add",
+		# be flexible in the type of console output message(s) reported
+		# for this particular case; we will be more stringent about the
+		# contents of the index and working directory.
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (.*/add)" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename.*/delete)" out &&
 		test_must_be_empty err &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >file_count &&
 		test_line_count = 2 file_count &&
 		git ls-files -u >file_count &&
 		test_line_count = 2 file_count &&
 		git ls-files -o >file_count &&
-		test_line_count = 2 file_count &&
+		test_line_count = 3 file_count &&
 
 		git rev-parse >actual \
 			:2:bar :3:bar &&
 		git rev-parse >expect \
 			B:bar  A:bar  &&
 
-		test_cmp file_is_missing foo &&
+		test_path_is_missing foo &&
 		# bar should have two-way merged contents of the different
 		# versions of bar; check that content from both sides is
 		# present.
@@ -954,11 +959,17 @@ test_expect_failure 'rrdd-check: rename/rename(2to1)/delete/delete conflict' '
 		git checkout A^0 &&
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
 
-		# Not sure whether the output should contain just one
-		# "CONFLICT (rename/rename/delete/delete)" line, or if it
-		# should break it into three: "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" and
-		# two "CONFLICT (rename/delete)" lines; allow for either.
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
+		# Instead of requiring the output to contain one combined line
+		#   CONFLICT (rename/rename/delete/delete)
+		# or perhaps two lines:
+		#   CONFLICT (rename/rename): ...
+		#   CONFLICT (rename/delete): info about pair 1
+		#   CONFLICT (rename/delete): info about pair 2
+		# and instead of requiring "rename/rename" instead of "add/add",
+		# be flexible in the type of console output message(s) reported
+		# for this particular case; we will be more stringent about the
+		# contents of the index and working directory.
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (\(.*\)/\1)" out &&
 		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename.*delete)" out &&
 		test_must_be_empty err &&
 
@@ -967,15 +978,15 @@ test_expect_failure 'rrdd-check: rename/rename(2to1)/delete/delete conflict' '
 		git ls-files -u >file_count &&
 		test_line_count = 2 file_count &&
 		git ls-files -o >file_count &&
-		test_line_count = 2 file_count &&
+		test_line_count = 3 file_count &&
 
 		git rev-parse >actual \
 			:2:baz :3:baz &&
 		git rev-parse >expect \
 			O:foo  O:bar  &&
 
-		test_cmp file_is_missing foo &&
-		test_cmp file_is_missing bar &&
+		test_path_is_missing foo &&
+		test_path_is_missing bar &&
 		# baz should have two-way merged contents of the original
 		# contents of foo and bar; check that content from both sides
 		# is present.
@@ -1042,25 +1053,25 @@ test_expect_failure 'mod6-check: chains of rename/rename(1to2) and rename/rename
 		test_must_be_empty err &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >file_count &&
-		test_line_count = 6 file_count &&
+		test_line_count = 9 file_count &&
 		git ls-files -u >file_count &&
-		test_line_count = 6 file_count &&
+		test_line_count = 9 file_count &&
 		git ls-files -o >file_count &&
 		test_line_count = 3 file_count &&
 
 		test_seq 10 20 >merged-one &&
 		test_seq 51 60 >merged-five &&
 		# Determine what the merge of three would give us.
-		test_seq 30 40 >three-side-A &&
+		test_seq 31 39 >three-base &&
+		test_seq 31 40 >three-side-A &&
 		test_seq 31 39 >three-side-B &&
-		echo forty >three-side-B &&
-		>empty &&
+		echo forty >>three-side-B &&
 		test_must_fail git merge-file \
-			-L "HEAD" \
+			-L "HEAD:four" \
 			-L "" \
-			-L "B^0" \
-			three-side-A empty three-side-B &&
-		sed -e "s/^\([<=>]\)/\1\1\1/" three-side-A >merged-three &&
+			-L "B^0:two" \
+			three-side-A three-base three-side-B &&
+		sed -e "s/^\([<=>]\)/\1\1/" three-side-A >merged-three &&
 
 		# Verify the index is as expected
 		git rev-parse >actual         \
@@ -1075,6 +1086,7 @@ test_expect_failure 'mod6-check: chains of rename/rename(1to2) and rename/rename
 
 		git cat-file -p :2:two >expect &&
 		git cat-file -p :3:two >other &&
+		>empty &&
 		test_must_fail git merge-file    \
 			-L "HEAD"  -L ""  -L "B^0" \
 			expect     empty  other &&

t/t6023-merge-file.sh renamed to t/t6403-merge-file.sh

@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ test_expect_success '1d: Directory renames cause a rename/rename(2to1) conflict'
 		git checkout A^0 &&
 
 		test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (\(.*\)/\1)" out &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >out &&
 		test_line_count = 8 out &&
@@ -1686,7 +1686,7 @@ test_expect_success '7b: rename/rename(2to1), but only due to transitive rename'
 		git checkout A^0 &&
 
 		test_must_fail git -c merge.directoryRenames=true merge -s recursive B^0 >out &&
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/rename)" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (\(.*\)/\1)" out &&
 
 		git ls-files -s >out &&
 		test_line_count = 4 out &&
@@ -2260,24 +2260,23 @@ test_expect_success '8d: rename/delete...or not?' '
 #   Commit B: w/{b,c}, z/d
 #
 # Possible Resolutions:
-#   w/o dir-rename detection: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
-#                                  CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
-#   Currently expected:       y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
-#                                  CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
-#   Optimal:                  ??
+#   if z not considered renamed: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
+#                                     CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
+#   if z->y rename considered:   y/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b),
+#                                     CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)
+#   Optimal:                     ??
 #
 # Notes: In commit A, directory z got renamed to y.  In commit B, 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 A to z/
-#        applies to z/d and maps it to y/d.
+#        elsewhere.  However, this is much like testcase 6b (where commit B
+#        moves all the original paths out of z/ but opted to keep d
+#        within z/).  This makes it hard to judge where d should end up.
 #
 #        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
-#        about 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.
+#        should we do instead?  It's not at all clear to me whether z/d or
+#        y/d or something else is a better resolution here, and other cases
+#        start getting really tricky, so I just picked one.
 
 test_setup_8e () {
 	test_create_repo 8e &&
@@ -2844,6 +2843,14 @@ test_expect_success '9f: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs
 #   Commit A: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files
 #   Commit B: goal/{a,b}/$more_files, goal/c
 #   Expected: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files, priority/c
+# We currently fail this test because the directory renames we detect are
+#   goal/a/ -> priority/alpha/
+#   goal/b/ -> priority/bravo/
+# We do not detect
+#   goal/   -> priority/
+# because of no files found within goal/, and the fact that "a" != "alpha"
+# and "b" != "bravo".  But I'm not sure it's really a failure given that
+# viewpoint...
 
 test_setup_9g () {
 	test_create_repo 9g &&
@@ -2880,6 +2887,7 @@ test_setup_9g () {
 }
 
 test_expect_failure '9g: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs, immediate subdirs renamed' '
+	test_setup_9g &&
 	(
 		cd 9g &&
 
@@ -3362,6 +3370,7 @@ test_setup_10e () {
 }
 
 test_expect_failure '10e: Does git complain about untracked file that is not really in the way?' '
+	test_setup_10e &&
 	(
 		cd 10e &&
 
@@ -4403,7 +4412,7 @@ test_expect_success '13b(info): messages for transitive rename with conflicted c
 #   Commit O: z/{b,c},   x/{d,e}
 #   Commit A: y/{b,c,d}, x/e
 #   Commit B: z/{b,c,d}, x/e
-#   Expected: y/{b,c,d}, with info or conflict messages for d (
+#   Expected: y/{b,c,d}, x/e, with info or conflict messages for d
 #             A: renamed x/d -> z/d; B: renamed z/ -> y/ AND renamed x/d to y/d
 #             One could argue A had partial knowledge of what was done with
 #             d and B had full knowledge, but that's a slippery slope as

t/t6024-recursive-merge.sh renamed to t/t6404-recursive-merge.sh

@@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ test_expect_success 'rename/delete' '
 	git commit -m "delete" &&
 
 	test_must_fail git merge --strategy=recursive rename >output &&
-	test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete): A deleted in HEAD and renamed to B in rename. Version rename of B left in tree." output
+	test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete): A.* renamed .*to B.* in rename" output &&
+	test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete): A.*deleted in HEAD." output
 '
 
 test_done

t/t6025-merge-symlinks.sh renamed to t/t6405-merge-symlinks.sh

@@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ test_expect_success '2c: Modify b & add c VS rename b->c' '
 		export GIT_MERGE_VERBOSITY &&
 		test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out 2>err &&
 
-		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/add): Rename b->c" out &&
+		test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (.*/add):" out &&
 		test_must_be_empty err &&
 
 		# Make sure c WAS updated