mirrors/jj
1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/martinvonz/jj.git synced 2025-01-31 00:12:06 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 8

rewrite: back out 9d4a973

Browse source 
I think the test case added in the previous commit shows a clear case
for why commit 9d4a973 was a bad idea.
This commit is contained in:
Martin von Zweigbergk 2025-01-06 08:56:07 -08:00 committed by Martin von Zweigbergk
parent ada946db62
commit 4a7d9891e6
2 changed files with 17 additions and 18 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
lib/src/rewrite.rs
View file

@ -247,16 +247,8 @@ impl<'repo> CommitRewriter<'repo> {
self.old_commit.tree_id().clone(),
)
} else {
let old_base_tree = merge_commit_trees_no_resolve_without_repo(
self.mut_repo.store(),
self.mut_repo.index(),
&old_parents,
)?;
let new_base_tree = merge_commit_trees_no_resolve_without_repo(
self.mut_repo.store(),
self.mut_repo.index(),
&new_parents,
)?;
let old_base_tree = merge_commit_trees(self.mut_repo, &old_parents)?;
let new_base_tree = merge_commit_trees(self.mut_repo, &new_parents)?;
let old_tree = self.old_commit.tree()?;
(
old_base_tree.id() == *self.old_commit.tree_id(),

23
lib/tests/test_merge_trees.rs
View file

@ -13,7 +13,9 @@
// limitations under the License.
use itertools::Itertools;
use jj_lib::backend::MergedTreeId;
use jj_lib::backend::TreeValue;
use jj_lib::merge::Merge;
use jj_lib::repo::Repo;
use jj_lib::repo_path::RepoPath;
use jj_lib::repo_path::RepoPathBuf;
@ -675,8 +677,7 @@ fn test_rebase_linearize_lossy_merge() {
let commit_d2 = rebase_commit(repo_mut, commit_d, vec![commit_b.id().clone()]).unwrap();
// TODO: Should be tree 2
assert_eq!(*commit_d2.tree_id(), tree_1.id());
assert_eq!(*commit_d2.tree_id(), tree_2.id());
}
#[test]
@ -685,7 +686,7 @@ fn test_rebase_on_lossy_merge() {
let repo = &test_repo.repo;
// Test this rebase:
// D foo=2 D' foo=3
// D foo=2 D' foo=2+(3-1) (conflict)
// |\ |\
// | C foo=2 | C' foo=3
// | | => | |
@ -695,10 +696,10 @@ fn test_rebase_on_lossy_merge() {
//
// Commit D effectively discarded a change from "1" to "2", so one
// reasonable result in D' is "3". That's what the result would be if we
// didn't have the "A+(A-B)=A" rule. It's also what the result currently
// is because we don't attempt to resolve the auto-merged parents (if we
// had, it would have been resolved to just "2" before the rebase and we
// get a conflict after the rebase).
// didn't have the "A+(A-B)=A" rule. However, because we resolve the
// auto-merged parents to just "2" before the rebase in order to be
// consistent with `jj show D` and other commands for inspecting the
// commit, we instead get a conflict after the rebase.
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("foo");
let mut tx = repo.start_transaction();
let repo_mut = tx.repo_mut();
@ -736,5 +737,11 @@ fn test_rebase_on_lossy_merge() {
)
.unwrap();
assert_eq!(*commit_d2.tree_id(), tree_3.id());
let expected_tree_id = Merge::from_vec(vec![
tree_2.id().to_merge(),
tree_1.id().to_merge(),
tree_3.id().to_merge(),
])
.flatten();
assert_eq!(*commit_d2.tree_id(), MergedTreeId::Merge(expected_tree_id));
}