This follows up on https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3459 and adds a
label to the closing delimeter of each conflict, e.g. "Conflict 1 of 3
ends".
I didn't initially put any label at the ending delimeter since the
starting delimeter is already marked with "Conflict 1 of 3". However,
I'm now realizing that when I resolve conflicts, I usually go from top
to bottom. The first thing I do is delete the starting conflict
delimeter. It is when I get to the *end* of the conflict that I wonder
whether there are any more conflicts left in the file.
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.
The format is 7 characters of the separator followed by a space and arbitrary
text, followed by a newline. Separator followed by a newline is also allowed.
E.g.:
<<<<<<< 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
This commit only allows reading such conflicts.
I considered allowing longer separators (`<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Random text`), but we
wouldn't currently write them, so let's be strict for now.
7 characters if they are followed by a space and arbitrary text
Apart from (IMO) looking nicer, this will also sidestep the potential problem
that if the file contains actual jj conflict markers (`>>>>>>>` in the beginning
of a line, for example), jj would currently have trouble materializing and
subsequently parsing conflicts in the file if it actually became conflicted.
I'll demo this bug in either this or a subsequent PR. It's the kind of bug that
sounds serious in theory but might never cause a problem in practice.
After this PR, only `docs/tutorial.md` has a conflict marker that's not indented.
There's only one there, so hopefully it won't be too much of a pain to deal with.
I also indented other strings in `test_conflicts.rs`. IMO, this looks nice and
more consistent with the `insta::assert_snapshot` output. I didn't spend the
time to do the same for `test_resolve_command`.
We didn't have any tests with negative snapshots (after a `-------`
line). I initially thought we couldn't produce such conflict markers
anymore. I'm not sure we want to render conflicts like the one in the
test like this. I don't think I intended for `add_index` in the code
to be able to be two steps ahead of the remove. Maybe we should
rewrite the algorithm to not do that and thus never produce negative
snapshots.
This enables cheap str-to-RepoPath cast, which is useful when sorting and
filtering a large Vec<(String, _)> list by using matcher for example. It
will also eliminate temporary allocation by repo_path.parent().
During the transition to using more async code, I keep running into
https://github.com/rust-lang/futures-rs/issues/2090. Right now, I want
to convert `MergedTree::diff()` into a `Stream`. I don't want to
update all call sites at once, so instead I'm adding a
`MergedTree::diff_stream()` method, which just wraps
`MergedTree::diff()` in a `Stream. However, since the iterator is
synchronous, it needs to block on the async `Backend::read_tree()`
calls. If we then also block on the `Stream` in the CLI, we run into
the panic.
Resolves states are most common and the current format is pretty
verbose. Let's print it as if `Merge` were an enum with `Resolved` and
`Conflicted` variants instead.
We need to let async-ness propagate up from the backend because
`block_on()` doesn't like to be called recursively. The conflict
materialization code is a good place to make async because it doesn't
depends on anything that isn't already async-ready.
I don't think there's any reason to use the local backend in tests
instead of using the stricter test backend.
I think we should generally use the test backend in tests and only use
the local backend or git backend when there's a particular reason to
do so (such as in `test_bad_locking` where the on-disk directory
structure matters). But this patch only deals with the simpler cases
where we were only testing with the local backend.
It makes the call sites clearer if we pass the `TestRepoBackend` enum
instead of the boolean `use_git` value. It's also more extensible (I
plan to add another backend for tests).
An alternative name for it would be `arity()`, but `num_sides()`
probably more clearly says that it's not about the number of removes
or the total number of terms.
`update_from_content()` already writes file content for each term of
an unresolved merge, so it seems consistent for it to also write the
file content for resolved merges. I think this should simplify further
refactoring for tree-level conflicts and for preserving the executable
bit.
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.
Since `Conflict<T>` can also represent a non-conflict state (a single
term), `Merge<T>` seems like better name.
Thanks to @ilyagr for the suggestion in
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/1774#discussion_r1257547709
Sorry about the churn. It would have been better if I thought of this
name before I introduced `Conflict<T>`.
Almost everyone calls the project "jj", and there seeems to be
consensus that we should rename the crates. I originally wanted the
crates to be called `jj` and `jj-lib`, but `jj` was already
taken. `jj-cli` is probably at least as good for it anyway.
Once we've published a 0.8.0 under the new names, we'll release 0.7.1
versions under the old names with pointers to the new crates names.
Since `Conflict`s can represent the resolved state, so
`Conflict<ContentHunk>` can represent the states that we use
`MergeHunk` for. `MergeHunk` does force the user to handle the
resolved case, which may be useful. I suppose one could use the same
argument for making `Conflict` an enum, i.e. if we think that
`MergeHunk`'s two variants are beneficial, then we should consider
making `Conflict` an enum with those two variants.
It's useful to have a more readable `Debug` format for `Vec<u8>`
(`"foo"` is better than `[102, 111, 111]`). It might also make types
in function signatures and elsewhere more readable.
Before we had `conflicts::Conflict`, most of these functions took a
`backend::Conflict`. I think I didn't want to pollute the `backend`
module with this kind of logic, trying to keep it focused on
storage. Now that we have the type in `conflicts`, however, I think it
makes sense to move these functions onto it.
For tree-level conflicts (#1624), I plan to remove `ConflictId`
completely. This commit removes `ConflictId` from
`update_conflict_from_content()` by instead making it take a
`Conflict<Option<TreeValue>>` and return a possibly different such
value.
I made the call site in `working_copy` avoid writing the conflict to
the store if it's unchanged, but I didn't make the same optimization
in `merge_tools` becuase it's much more likely to have changed there.
Currently, if the user modifies a modify/delete conflict, we always
consider the result resolved. That happens because we materialize the
missing side of the conflict as an empty string but when we parse the
conflict, we expect only the number of sides in the input
conflict. For example, if the input is a regular modify/delete
conflict with one remove and one add, the materialized markers will
have one remove and two adds (one of them empty), but when we try to
parse it, we expect one remove and only one add. When we fail to parse
it, we consider it resolved.
This commit fixes the bug by using
`conflicts::Conflict<Option<TreeValue>>` and keeping track of which
sides were supposed to be empty. We could have fixed the bug without
switching to `conflicts::Conflict`, but we want to switch anyway, and
the fix happens naturally when switching.
This should fix#1304. I think the added test simulates the behavior of
multiple rebase conflicts, but I don't have expertise around this.
add_index could be replaced with a peekable iterator, but the iterator version
wouldn't be as readable as the current implementation.
We write conflict to the working copy by materializing them as
conflict markers in a file. When the file has been modified (or just
the mtime has changed), we parse the markers to reconstruct the
conflict. For example, let's say we see this conflict marker:
```
<<<<<<<
+++++++
b
%%%%%%%
-a
+c
>>>>>>>
```
Then we will create a hunk with ["a"] as removed and ["b", "c"] as
added.
Now, since commit b84be06c08, when we materialize conflicts, we
minimize the diff part of the marker (the `%%%%%%%` part). The problem
is that that minimization may result in a different order of the
positive conflict terms. That's particularly bad because we do the
minimization per hunk, so we can end up reconstructing an input that
never existed.
This commit fixes the bug by only considering the next add and the one
after that, and emitting either only the first with `%%%%%%%`, or both
of them, with the first one in `++++++++` and the second one in
`%%%%%%%`.
Note that the recent fix to add context to modify/delete conflicts
means that when we parse modified such conflicts, we'll always
consider them resolved, since the expected adds/removes we pass will
not match what's actually in the file. That doesn't seem so bad, and
it's not obvious what the fix should be, so I'll leave that for later.
It took a while before I realized that conflicts could be modeled as
simple algebraic expressions with positive and negative terms (they
were modeled as recursive 3-way conflicts initially). We've been
thinking of them that way for a while now, so let's make the
`ConflictPart` name match that model.
When we materialize modify/delete conflicts, we currently don't
include any context lines. That's because modify/delete conflicts have
only two sides, so there's no common base to compare to. Hunks that
are unchanged on the "modify" side are therefore not considered
conflicting, and since they they don't contribute new changes, they're
simply skipped (here:
3dfedf5814/lib/src/files.rs (L228-L230)).
It seems more useful to instead pretend that the missing side is an
empty file. That way we'll get a conflict in the entire file.
We can still decide later to make e.g. `jj resolve` prompt the user on
modify/delete conflicts just like `hg resolve` does (or maybe it
actually happens earlier there, I don't remember).
Closes#1244.
