Many (most?) callers of `Store::empty_tree_id()` really want a
`MergedTreeId`, so let's create a helper for that. It returns the
`Legacy` variant, which is what all current callers used. That should
be all we need since the two variants compare equal these days, and
since trees built based on the legacy variant can get promoted to the
new variant on write if the config is enabled.
When we start writing tree-level conflicts in an existing repo, we
don't want commits that change the format to be non-empty if they
don't change any content. This patch updates `MergeTreeId::eq()` to
consider two resolved trees equal even if only their `MergedTreeId`
variant is different (one is path-level and one is tree-level).
I think I've gone through all places we compare tree ids and checked
that it's safe to compare them this way. One consequence is that
rebasing a commit without changing the parents (typically
auto-rebasing after `jj describe`) will not lead to the tree id
getting upgraded, due to an optimization we have for that case. I
don't think that's serious enough to handle specially; we'll have to
support the old format for existing repos for a while regardless of a
few commits not getting upgraded right away.
The number of failing tests with the config option enabled drop from
108 to 11 with this patch.
We're finally ready to start writing trees using the new format where
we represent conflicts by having multiple trees in the commit instead
of having a single tree with multiple entries at a path. This patch
adds a config option for that. It's not ready to be used yet, so I
haven't updated the release notes or other documentation.
I added only a simple CLI test for testing what happens when the
config is enabled in an existing repo. 108 tests currently fail if we
flip the default.
I think most tests want a `MergedTree`, so this makes `create_tree()`
return that. I kept the old function as `create_single_tree()`. That's
now only used in `test_merge_trees` and `test_merged_tree`.
I also consistently imported the functions now, something I've
considered doing for a long time.
I made it simply fail on explicit fetch/import, and ignored on implicit import.
Since the error mode is predictable and less likely to occur. I don't think it
makes sense to implement warning propagation just for this.
Closes#1690.
With the already existing `MergedTree::resolve()` and all the recent
refactorings into `Merge<T>`, it's now very easy to add support for
3-way merging of `MergedTree` instances.
This introduces a `MergedTreeBuilder` type, which takes a set of base
trees and overrides. The idea is that it will be able to write
multiple trees or a legacy tree. For now, it's only able to write
legacy trees. To show that it works, the working copy's snaphotting
code has been updated to use it.
We currently represent the root tree id in a commit by `Merge<TreeId>`
plus a boolean `uses_tree_conflict_format`. It's better to use an enum
for that. That makes it harder to forget to check which type of tree
it is, and it makes it impossible to store a legacy tree with multiple
ids (as we could with `uses_tree_conflict_format=false`,
`root_tree=Merge::new(...)`).
Maybe more importantly, we're also going to want to pass around this
information in most places where we currently pass a single `TreeId`,
and passing two separate values would be annoying.
Unlike the git backend, we don't need to support path-level conflicts
for existing repos because we don't care about compatibility with
existing repos using the native backend. However, we still need to
support both formats until all code paths are able to handle
tree-level conflicts.
As #2165 showed, when diffing two `MergedTree::Legacy` variants (or
one of each variant) and re recurse into a subtree, we need to treat
that as a legacy tree too, so we expand `TreeValue::Conflict`s found
in the diff.
