If we're going to be able to replace most instances of `Tree` by
`MergedTree`, we'll need to be able to diff two `MergedTree`s. This
implements support for that. The implementation copies a lot from the
diff iterator we have for `Tree`. I suspect we should be able to reuse
some of the code by introducing some traits that can then be
implemented by both `Tree` and `MergedTree`. I've left a TODO about
that.
Implementing `Iterator` and `FromIterator` on `Merge<T>` provides much
more flexibility than the current `map()`, `try_map()`, etc.
`Merge::from_iter()` wouldn't have a way of failing if it's given an
unexpected (even) number of items. I would be fine with having it
panic, but we can't even usefully do that, because
e.g. `Option::from_iter()` will pass us an iterator ends early if the
input interator ends early. For example,
`Merge::resolved(None).iter().collect()` would call
`Merge::from_iter()` with an empty iterator (first item `None`). So, I
instead created a `MergeBuilder` type implementing `FromIterator`, and
let `MergeBuilder::build()` panic if there were an even number of
items.
I re-implemented some existing `Merge` methods using the new
facilities in this commit. Maybe we should remove some of the methods.
Since `update_from_contents()` only works with file contents and not
the executable or other kinds of paths, I think it makes more sense
for it to deal with `FileId`s instead of `TreeValue`s.
I think I moved way too many functions onto `Merge<Option<TreeValue>>`
in 82883e648d. This effectively reverts almost all of that
commit. The `Merge<T>` type is simple container and it seems like it
should be at fairly low level in the dependency graph. By moving
functions off of it, we can get rid of the back-depdencies from the
`merge` module to the `conflict` module that I introduced when I moved
`Merge` to the `merge` module. I'm thinking the `conflict` module can
focus on materialized conflicts.
This changes the behavior in one of the cases ilyagr@
[mentioned](https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/1610#discussion_r1199823932)
to match his suggestion. After some more thinking while working on
tree-level conflicts, I now think it's clear that the added `+C-C`
terms should have no effect on the result. A very similar argument is
that `Conflict::simplify()` should not change the result of
`trivial_merge()`. I'll add tests for that next.
I don't know why I made it return an owned value. It seems like an
unnecessary restriction that the value implements `Clone`, so let's
return a reference instead.
We already resolve merge conflicts between hunks, trees, and refs, and
maybe more. They each have their own code for the handling trivial
merges (where the output is equal to one of the inputs). They look
surprisingly different. This commit adds a generic function for doing
that. Curiously, this new implementation uses implements it in yet
another way (basically using a multi-set).
