ok/jj
1
0
Fork 0
forked from mirrors/jj
jj/lib/tests/test_conflicts.rs

1000 lines
26 KiB
Rust
Raw Normal View History

// Copyright 2021 The Jujutsu Authors
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
use indoc::indoc;
use jj_lib::backend::FileId;
use jj_lib::conflicts::{
extract_as_single_hunk, materialize_merge_result, parse_conflict, update_from_content,
};
use jj_lib::merge::Merge;
use jj_lib::repo::Repo;
use jj_lib::repo_path::RepoPath;
use jj_lib::store::Store;
use pollster::FutureExt;
use testutils::TestRepo;
#[test]
fn test_materialize_conflict_basic() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("file");
let base_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2
line 3
line 4
line 5
"},
);
let left_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2
left 3.1
left 3.2
left 3.3
line 4
line 5
"},
);
let right_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2
right 3.1
line 4
line 5
"},
);
// The left side should come first. The diff should be use the smaller (right)
// side, and the left side should be a snapshot.
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(left_id.clone()), Some(right_id.clone())],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict),
@r###"
line 1
line 2
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
+++++++ Contents of side #1
left 3.1
left 3.2
left 3.3
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2
-line 3
+right 3.1
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
line 4
line 5
"###
);
// Swap the positive terms in the conflict. The diff should still use the right
// side, but now the right side should come first.
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(right_id.clone()), Some(left_id.clone())],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict),
@r###"
line 1
line 2
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
-line 3
+right 3.1
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
+++++++ Contents of side #2
left 3.1
left 3.2
left 3.3
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
line 4
line 5
"###
);
}
#[test]
fn test_materialize_conflict_multi_rebase_conflicts() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
// Create changes (a, b, c) on top of the base, and linearize them.
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("file");
let base_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2 base
line 3
"},
);
let a_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2 a.1
line 2 a.2
line 2 a.3
line 3
"},
);
let b_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2 b.1
line 2 b.2
line 3
"},
);
let c_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2 c.1
line 3
"},
);
// The order of (a, b, c) should be preserved. For all cases, the "a" side
// should be a snapshot.
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone()), Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(a_id.clone()), Some(b_id.clone()), Some(c_id.clone())],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict),
@r###"
line 1
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
+++++++ Contents of side #1
line 2 a.1
line 2 a.2
line 2 a.3
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base #1 to side #2
-line 2 base
+line 2 b.1
+line 2 b.2
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base #2 to side #3
-line 2 base
+line 2 c.1
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
line 3
"###
);
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone()), Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(c_id.clone()), Some(b_id.clone()), Some(a_id.clone())],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict),
@r###"
line 1
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base #1 to side #1
-line 2 base
+line 2 c.1
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base #2 to side #2
-line 2 base
+line 2 b.1
+line 2 b.2
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
+++++++ Contents of side #3
line 2 a.1
line 2 a.2
line 2 a.3
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
line 3
"###
);
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone()), Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(c_id.clone()), Some(a_id.clone()), Some(b_id.clone())],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict),
@r###"
line 1
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base #1 to side #1
-line 2 base
+line 2 c.1
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
+++++++ Contents of side #2
line 2 a.1
line 2 a.2
line 2 a.3
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base #2 to side #3
-line 2 base
+line 2 b.1
+line 2 b.2
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
line 3
"###
);
}
// TODO: With options
#[test]
fn test_materialize_parse_roundtrip() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("file");
let base_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2
line 3
line 4
line 5
"},
);
let left_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1 left
line 2 left
line 3
line 4
line 5 left
"},
);
let right_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1 right
line 2
line 3
line 4 right
line 5 right
"},
);
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(left_id.clone()), Some(right_id.clone())],
);
let materialized = materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
materialized,
@r###"
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 2
+++++++ Contents of side #1
line 1 left
line 2 left
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2
-line 1
+line 1 right
line 2
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 2 ends
line 3
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 2 of 2
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
line 4
-line 5
+line 5 left
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
+++++++ Contents of side #2
line 4 right
line 5 right
>>>>>>> Conflict 2 of 2 ends
"###
);
// The first add should always be from the left side
insta::assert_debug_snapshot!(
parse_conflict(materialized.as_bytes(), conflict.num_sides()),
@r###"
Some(
[
Conflicted(
[
"line 1 left\nline 2 left\n",
"line 1\nline 2\n",
"line 1 right\nline 2\n",
],
),
Resolved(
"line 3\n",
),
Conflicted(
[
"line 4\nline 5 left\n",
"line 4\nline 5\n",
"line 4 right\nline 5 right\n",
],
),
],
)
"###);
}
#[test]
fn test_materialize_conflict_modify_delete() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("file");
let base_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2
line 3
line 4
line 5
"},
);
let modified_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2
modified
line 4
line 5
"},
);
let deleted_id = testutils::write_file(
store,
path,
indoc! {"
line 1
line 2
line 4
line 5
"},
);
// left modifies a line, right deletes the same line.
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(modified_id.clone()), Some(deleted_id.clone())],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict), @r###"
line 1
line 2
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
+++++++ Contents of side #1
modified
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2
-line 3
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
line 4
line 5
"###
);
// right modifies a line, left deletes the same line.
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(deleted_id.clone()), Some(modified_id.clone())],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict), @r###"
line 1
line 2
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
-line 3
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
+++++++ Contents of side #2
modified
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
line 4
line 5
"###
);
// modify/delete conflict at the file level
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_id.clone())],
vec![Some(modified_id.clone()), None],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict), @r###"
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
line 1
line 2
-line 3
+modified
line 4
line 5
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
+++++++ Contents of side #2
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
"###
);
}
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
#[test]
fn test_materialize_conflict_two_forward_diffs() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
// Create conflict A-B+B-C+D-E+C. This is designed to tempt the algorithm to
// produce a negative snapshot at the end like this:
// <<<<
// ====
// A
// %%%%
// B
// ++++
// D
// %%%%
// C
// ----
// E
// >>>>
// TODO: Maybe we should never have negative snapshots
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("file");
let a_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "A\n");
let b_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "B\n");
let c_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "C\n");
let d_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "D\n");
let e_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "E\n");
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(b_id.clone()), Some(c_id.clone()), Some(e_id.clone())],
vec![
Some(a_id.clone()),
Some(b_id.clone()),
Some(d_id.clone()),
Some(c_id.clone()),
],
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
&materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict),
@r###"
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
+++++++ Contents of side #1
A
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base #1 to side #2
B
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
+++++++ Contents of side #3
D
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
%%%%%%% Changes from base #2 to side #4
C
conflicts.rs: label conflict number and sides next to conflict markers For example, ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3 +++++++ Contents of side #1 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2 -line 3 +right 3.1 >>>>>>> ``` or ``` <<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1 %%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1 -line 3 +right 3.1 +++++++ Contents of side #2 left 3.1 left 3.2 left 3.3 >>>>>>> ``` Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in principle. Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the conflicts while you are in the editor. While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or description as requested in #1176, I still think it's an improvement. Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less scary-looking for new users. I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a conflict with more than 2 sides. Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3109#issuecomment-2014140627. The idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like to experiment with it.
2024-03-23 22:16:28 +00:00
------- Contents of base #3
E
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 1 ends
"###
);
}
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
#[test]
fn test_parse_conflict_resolved() {
assert_eq!(
parse_conflict(
indoc! {b"
line 1
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
line 2
line 3
line 4
line 5
"},
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
2
),
None
)
}
#[test]
fn test_parse_conflict_simple() {
insta::assert_debug_snapshot!(
parse_conflict(indoc! {b"
line 1
<<<<<<<
%%%%%%%
line 2
-line 3
+left
line 4
+++++++
right
>>>>>>>
line 5
"},
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
2
),
@r###"
Some(
[
Resolved(
"line 1\n",
),
Conflicted(
[
"line 2\nleft\nline 4\n",
"line 2\nline 3\nline 4\n",
"right\n",
],
),
Resolved(
"line 5\n",
),
],
)
"###
);
insta::assert_debug_snapshot!(
parse_conflict(indoc! {b"
line 1
<<<<<<<<<<< Text
%%%%%%%%%%% Different text
line 2
-line 3
+left
line 4
+++++++++++ Yet <><>< more text
right
>>>>>>>>>>> More and more text
line 5
"},
2
),
@r###"
Some(
[
Resolved(
"line 1\n",
),
Conflicted(
[
"line 2\nleft\nline 4\n",
"line 2\nline 3\nline 4\n",
"right\n",
],
),
Resolved(
"line 5\n",
),
],
)
"###
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
)
}
#[test]
fn test_parse_conflict_multi_way() {
insta::assert_debug_snapshot!(
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
parse_conflict(
indoc! {b"
line 1
<<<<<<<
%%%%%%%
line 2
-line 3
+left
line 4
+++++++
right
%%%%%%%
line 2
+forward
line 3
line 4
>>>>>>>
line 5
"},
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
3
),
@r###"
Some(
[
Resolved(
"line 1\n",
),
Conflicted(
[
"line 2\nleft\nline 4\n",
"line 2\nline 3\nline 4\n",
"right\n",
"line 2\nline 3\nline 4\n",
"line 2\nforward\nline 3\nline 4\n",
],
),
Resolved(
"line 5\n",
),
],
)
"###
);
insta::assert_debug_snapshot!(
parse_conflict(indoc! {b"
line 1
<<<<<<< Random text
%%%%%%% Random text
line 2
-line 3
+left
line 4
+++++++ Random text
right
%%%%%%% Random text
line 2
+forward
line 3
line 4
>>>>>>> Random text
line 5
"},
3
),
@r###"
Some(
[
Resolved(
"line 1\n",
),
Conflicted(
[
"line 2\nleft\nline 4\n",
"line 2\nline 3\nline 4\n",
"right\n",
"line 2\nline 3\nline 4\n",
"line 2\nforward\nline 3\nline 4\n",
],
),
Resolved(
"line 5\n",
),
],
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
)
"###
);
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
}
#[test]
fn test_parse_conflict_different_wrong_arity() {
assert_eq!(
parse_conflict(
indoc! {b"
line 1
<<<<<<<
%%%%%%%
line 2
-line 3
+left
line 4
+++++++
right
>>>>>>>
line 5
"},
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
3
),
None
)
}
#[test]
fn test_parse_conflict_malformed_marker() {
// The conflict marker is missing `%%%%%%%`
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
assert_eq!(
parse_conflict(
indoc! {b"
line 1
<<<<<<<
line 2
-line 3
+left
line 4
+++++++
right
>>>>>>>
line 5
"},
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
2
),
None
)
}
#[test]
fn test_parse_conflict_malformed_diff() {
// The diff part is invalid (missing space before "line 4")
assert_eq!(
parse_conflict(
indoc! {b"
line 1
<<<<<<<
%%%%%%%
line 2
-line 3
+left
line 4
+++++++
right
>>>>>>>
line 5
"},
conflicts: add a function for parsing a materialized conflict I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its `check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in `MutableRepo::check_out`(). I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts (i.e. all file systems). The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not). Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several advantages: * Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and then). * If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically abandon it if you update away from it. * The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope. * It should make it easier to implement support for external merge tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently. This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing materialized conflicts.
2021-10-31 18:57:12 +00:00
2
),
None
)
}
#[test]
fn test_update_conflict_from_content() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("dir/file");
let base_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "line 1\nline 2\nline 3\n");
let left_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "left 1\nline 2\nleft 3\n");
let right_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "right 1\nline 2\nright 3\n");
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_file_id.clone())],
vec![Some(left_file_id.clone()), Some(right_file_id.clone())],
);
// If the content is unchanged compared to the materialized value, we get the
// old conflict id back.
let materialized = materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict);
let parse = |content| {
update_from_content(&conflict, store, path, content)
.block_on()
.unwrap()
};
assert_eq!(parse(materialized.as_bytes()), conflict);
// If the conflict is resolved, we get None back to indicate that.
let expected_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nresolved 3\n");
assert_eq!(
parse(b"resolved 1\nline 2\nresolved 3\n"),
Merge::normal(expected_file_id)
);
// If the conflict is partially resolved, we get a new conflict back.
let new_conflict = parse(
b"resolved 1\nline 2\n<<<<<<<\n%%%%%%%\n-line 3\n+left 3\n+++++++\nright 3\n>>>>>>>\n",
);
assert_ne!(new_conflict, conflict);
// Calculate expected new FileIds
let new_base_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nline 3\n");
let new_left_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nleft 3\n");
let new_right_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nright 3\n");
assert_eq!(
new_conflict,
Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(new_base_file_id.clone())],
vec![
Some(new_left_file_id.clone()),
Some(new_right_file_id.clone())
]
)
);
}
#[test]
fn test_update_conflict_from_content_modify_delete() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("dir/file");
let before_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "line 1\nline 2 before\nline 3\n");
let after_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "line 1\nline 2 after\nline 3\n");
let conflict =
Merge::from_removes_adds(vec![Some(before_file_id)], vec![Some(after_file_id), None]);
// If the content is unchanged compared to the materialized value, we get the
// old conflict id back.
let materialized = materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict);
let parse = |content| {
update_from_content(&conflict, store, path, content)
.block_on()
.unwrap()
};
assert_eq!(parse(materialized.as_bytes()), conflict);
// If the conflict is resolved, we get None back to indicate that.
let expected_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved\n");
assert_eq!(parse(b"resolved\n"), Merge::normal(expected_file_id));
// If the conflict is modified, we get a new conflict back.
let new_conflict = parse(
b"<<<<<<<\n%%%%%%%\n line 1\n-line 2 before\n+line 2 modified after\n line 3\n+++++++\n>>>>>>>\n",
);
// Calculate expected new FileIds
let new_base_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "line 1\nline 2 before\nline 3\n");
let new_left_file_id =
testutils::write_file(store, path, "line 1\nline 2 modified after\nline 3\n");
assert_eq!(
new_conflict,
Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(new_base_file_id.clone())],
vec![Some(new_left_file_id.clone()), None]
)
);
}
#[test]
fn test_update_conflict_from_content_simplified_conflict() {
let test_repo = TestRepo::init();
let store = test_repo.repo.store();
let path = RepoPath::from_internal_string("dir/file");
let base_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "line 1\nline 2\nline 3\n");
let left_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "left 1\nline 2\nleft 3\n");
let right_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "right 1\nline 2\nright 3\n");
// Conflict: left - base + base - base + right
let conflict = Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_file_id.clone()), Some(base_file_id.clone())],
vec![
Some(left_file_id.clone()),
Some(base_file_id.clone()),
Some(right_file_id.clone()),
],
);
let simplified_conflict = conflict.clone().simplify();
// If the content is unchanged compared to the materialized value, we get the
// old conflict id back. Both the simplified and unsimplified materialized
// conflicts should return the old conflict id.
let materialized = materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &conflict);
let materialized_simplified = materialize_conflict_string(store, path, &simplified_conflict);
let parse = |content| {
update_from_content(&conflict, store, path, content)
.block_on()
.unwrap()
};
insta::assert_snapshot!(
materialized,
@r###"
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 2
+++++++ Contents of side #1
left 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base #1 to side #2
line 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base #2 to side #3
-line 1
+right 1
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 2 ends
line 2
<<<<<<< Conflict 2 of 2
+++++++ Contents of side #1
left 3
%%%%%%% Changes from base #1 to side #2
line 3
%%%%%%% Changes from base #2 to side #3
-line 3
+right 3
>>>>>>> Conflict 2 of 2 ends
"###
);
insta::assert_snapshot!(
materialized_simplified,
@r###"
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 2
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
-line 1
+left 1
+++++++ Contents of side #2
right 1
>>>>>>> Conflict 1 of 2 ends
line 2
<<<<<<< Conflict 2 of 2
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
-line 3
+left 3
+++++++ Contents of side #2
right 3
>>>>>>> Conflict 2 of 2 ends
"###
);
assert_eq!(parse(materialized.as_bytes()), conflict);
assert_eq!(parse(materialized_simplified.as_bytes()), conflict);
// If the conflict is resolved, we get a normal merge back to indicate that.
let expected_file_id = testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nresolved 3\n");
assert_eq!(
parse(b"resolved 1\nline 2\nresolved 3\n"),
Merge::normal(expected_file_id)
);
// If the conflict is partially resolved, we get a new conflict back.
// This should work with both the simplified and unsimplified conflict.
let new_conflict = parse(indoc! {b"
resolved 1
line 2
<<<<<<< Conflict 2 of 2
+++++++ Contents of side #1
edited left 3
%%%%%%% Changes from base #1 to side #2
edited line 3
%%%%%%% Changes from base #2 to side #3
-edited line 3
+edited right 3
>>>>>>> Conflict 2 of 2 ends
"});
let new_simplified_conflict = parse(indoc! {b"
resolved 1
line 2
<<<<<<< Conflict 2 of 2
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
-edited line 3
+edited left 3
+++++++ Contents of side #2
edited right 3
>>>>>>> Conflict 2 of 2 ends
"});
assert_ne!(new_conflict, conflict);
assert_ne!(new_simplified_conflict, conflict);
// Calculate expected new FileIds
let new_base_file_id =
testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nedited line 3\n");
let new_left_file_id =
testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nedited left 3\n");
let new_right_file_id =
testutils::write_file(store, path, "resolved 1\nline 2\nedited right 3\n");
assert_eq!(
new_conflict,
Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![
Some(new_base_file_id.clone()),
Some(new_base_file_id.clone())
],
vec![
Some(new_left_file_id.clone()),
Some(new_base_file_id.clone()),
Some(new_right_file_id.clone())
]
)
);
assert_eq!(
new_simplified_conflict,
Merge::from_removes_adds(
vec![Some(base_file_id.clone()), Some(new_base_file_id.clone())],
vec![
Some(new_left_file_id.clone()),
Some(base_file_id.clone()),
Some(new_right_file_id.clone())
]
)
);
}
fn materialize_conflict_string(
store: &Store,
path: &RepoPath,
conflict: &Merge<Option<FileId>>,
) -> String {
let mut result: Vec<u8> = vec![];
let contents = extract_as_single_hunk(conflict, store, path)
.block_on()
.unwrap();
materialize_merge_result(&contents, &mut result).unwrap();
String::from_utf8(result).unwrap()
}