git/t/t3400-rebase.sh

460 lines
12 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2005 Amos Waterland
#
test_description='git rebase assorted tests
This test runs git rebase and checks that the author information is not lost
among other things.
'
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main
tests: mark tests relying on the current default for `init.defaultBranch` In addition to the manual adjustment to let the `linux-gcc` CI job run the test suite with `master` and then with `main`, this patch makes sure that GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME is set in all test scripts that currently rely on the initial branch name being `master by default. To determine which test scripts to mark up, the first step was to force-set the default branch name to `master` in - all test scripts that contain the keyword `master`, - t4211, which expects `t/t4211/history.export` with a hard-coded ref to initialize the default branch, - t5560 because it sources `t/t556x_common` which uses `master`, - t8002 and t8012 because both source `t/annotate-tests.sh` which also uses `master`) This trick was performed by this command: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/\(test-lib\|lib-\(bash\|cvs\|git-svn\)\|gitweb-lib\)\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' $(git grep -l master t/t[0-9]*.sh) \ t/t4211*.sh t/t5560*.sh t/t8002*.sh t/t8012*.sh After that, careful, manual inspection revealed that some of the test scripts containing the needle `master` do not actually rely on a specific default branch name: either they mention `master` only in a comment, or they initialize that branch specificially, or they do not actually refer to the current default branch. Therefore, the aforementioned modification was undone in those test scripts thusly: $ git checkout HEAD -- \ t/t0027-auto-crlf.sh t/t0060-path-utils.sh \ t/t1011-read-tree-sparse-checkout.sh \ t/t1305-config-include.sh t/t1309-early-config.sh \ t/t1402-check-ref-format.sh t/t1450-fsck.sh \ t/t2024-checkout-dwim.sh \ t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh \ t/t3040-subprojects-basic.sh t/t3301-notes.sh \ t/t3308-notes-merge.sh t/t3423-rebase-reword.sh \ t/t3436-rebase-more-options.sh \ t/t4015-diff-whitespace.sh t/t4257-am-interactive.sh \ t/t5323-pack-redundant.sh t/t5401-update-hooks.sh \ t/t5511-refspec.sh t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh \ t/t5529-push-errors.sh t/t5530-upload-pack-error.sh \ t/t5548-push-porcelain.sh \ t/t5552-skipping-fetch-negotiator.sh \ t/t5572-pull-submodule.sh t/t5608-clone-2gb.sh \ t/t5614-clone-submodules-shallow.sh \ t/t7508-status.sh t/t7606-merge-custom.sh \ t/t9302-fast-import-unpack-limit.sh We excluded one set of test scripts in these commands, though: the range of `git p4` tests. The reason? `git p4` stores the (foreign) remote branch in the branch called `p4/master`, which is obviously not the default branch. Manual analysis revealed that only five of these tests actually require a specific default branch name to pass; They were modified thusly: $ sed -i '/^ *\. \.\/lib-git-p4\.sh$/i\ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master\ export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME\ ' t/t980[0167]*.sh t/t9811*.sh Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-11-19 07:44:19 +08:00
export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
. ./test-lib.sh
GIT_AUTHOR_NAME=author@name
GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=bogus@email@address
export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
test_expect_success 'prepare repository with topic branches' '
test_commit "Add A." A First First &&
git checkout -b force-3way &&
echo Dummy >Y &&
git update-index --add Y &&
git commit -m "Add Y." &&
git checkout -b filemove &&
git reset --soft main &&
mkdir D &&
git mv A D/A &&
git commit -m "Move A." &&
git checkout -b my-topic-branch main &&
test_commit "Add B." B Second Second &&
git checkout -f main &&
echo Third >>A &&
git update-index A &&
git commit -m "Modify A." &&
git checkout -b side my-topic-branch &&
echo Side >>C &&
git add C &&
git commit -m "Add C" &&
git checkout -f my-topic-branch &&
git tag topic
'
test_expect_success 'rebase on dirty worktree' '
echo dirty >>A &&
test_must_fail git rebase main
'
test_expect_success 'rebase on dirty cache' '
git add A &&
test_must_fail git rebase main
'
test_expect_success 'rebase against main' '
git reset --hard HEAD &&
git rebase main
'
test_expect_success 'rebase sets ORIG_HEAD to pre-rebase state' '
git checkout -b orig-head topic &&
pre="$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD)" &&
git rebase main &&
test_cmp_rev "$pre" ORIG_HEAD &&
test_cmp_rev ! "$pre" HEAD
'
test_expect_success 'rebase, with <onto> and <upstream> specified as :/quuxery' '
test_when_finished "git branch -D torebase" &&
git checkout -b torebase my-topic-branch^ &&
upstream=$(git rev-parse ":/Add B") &&
onto=$(git rev-parse ":/Add A") &&
git rebase --onto $onto $upstream &&
git reset --hard my-topic-branch^ &&
git rebase --onto ":/Add A" ":/Add B" &&
git checkout my-topic-branch
'
test_expect_success 'the rebase operation should not have destroyed author information' '
! (git log | grep "Author:" | grep "<>")
'
test_expect_success 'the rebase operation should not have destroyed author information (2)' "
git log -1 |
grep 'Author: $GIT_AUTHOR_NAME <$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL>'
"
test_expect_success 'HEAD was detached during rebase' '
test $(git rev-parse HEAD@{1}) != $(git rev-parse my-topic-branch@{1})
'
test_expect_success 'rebase from ambiguous branch name' '
git checkout -b topic side &&
git rebase main
'
test_expect_success 'rebase off of the previous branch using "-"' '
git checkout main &&
git checkout HEAD^ &&
git rebase @{-1} >expect.messages &&
git merge-base main HEAD >expect.forkpoint &&
git checkout main &&
git checkout HEAD^ &&
git rebase - >actual.messages &&
git merge-base main HEAD >actual.forkpoint &&
test_cmp expect.forkpoint actual.forkpoint &&
# the next one is dubious---we may want to say "-",
# instead of @{-1}, in the message
test_cmp expect.messages actual.messages
'
test_expect_success 'rebase a single mode change' '
git checkout main &&
git branch -D topic &&
echo 1 >X &&
git add X &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m prepare &&
git checkout -b modechange HEAD^ &&
echo 1 >X &&
git add X &&
test_chmod +x A &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m modechange &&
GIT_TRACE=1 git rebase main
'
test_expect_success 'rebase is not broken by diff.renames' '
test_config diff.renames copies &&
git checkout filemove &&
GIT_TRACE=1 git rebase force-3way
'
test_expect_success 'setup: recover' '
test_might_fail git rebase --abort &&
git reset --hard &&
git checkout modechange
'
2009-02-09 13:40:42 +08:00
test_expect_success 'Show verbose error when HEAD could not be detached' '
>B &&
test_when_finished "rm -f B" &&
test_must_fail git rebase topic 2>output.err >output.out &&
test_grep "The following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by checkout:" output.err &&
test_grep B output.err &&
test_must_fail git rebase --quit 2>err &&
test_grep "no rebase in progress" err
2009-02-09 13:40:42 +08:00
'
test_expect_success 'fail when upstream arg is missing and not on branch' '
git checkout topic &&
test_must_fail git rebase
'
test_expect_success 'fail when upstream arg is missing and not configured' '
git checkout -b no-config topic &&
test_must_fail git rebase
'
test_expect_success 'rebase works with format.useAutoBase' '
test_config format.useAutoBase true &&
git checkout topic &&
git rebase main
'
test_expect_success 'default to common base in @{upstream}s reflog if no upstream arg (--merge)' '
git checkout -b default-base main &&
git checkout -b default topic &&
git config branch.default.remote . &&
git config branch.default.merge refs/heads/default-base &&
git rebase --merge &&
git rev-parse --verify default-base >expect &&
git rev-parse default~1 >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
git checkout default-base &&
git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
git checkout default &&
git rebase --merge &&
git rev-parse --verify default-base >expect &&
git rev-parse default~1 >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual
'
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16 05:36:41 +08:00
test_expect_success 'default to common base in @{upstream}s reflog if no upstream arg (--apply)' '
git checkout -B default-base main &&
git checkout -B default topic &&
git config branch.default.remote . &&
git config branch.default.merge refs/heads/default-base &&
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16 05:36:41 +08:00
git rebase --apply &&
git rev-parse --verify default-base >expect &&
git rev-parse default~1 >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
git checkout default-base &&
git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
git checkout default &&
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16 05:36:41 +08:00
git rebase --apply &&
git rev-parse --verify default-base >expect &&
git rev-parse default~1 >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual
'
2009-02-09 13:40:42 +08:00
rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point When the `--fork-point` argument was added to `git rebase`, we changed the value of $upstream to be the fork point instead of the point from which we want to rebase. When $orig_head..$upstream is empty this does not change the behaviour, but when there are new changes in the upstream we are no longer checking if any of them are patch-identical with changes in $upstream..$orig_head. Fix this by introducing a new variable to hold the fork point and using this to restrict the range as an extra (negative) revision argument so that the set of desired revisions becomes (in fork-point mode): git rev-list --cherry-pick --right-only \ $upstream...$orig_head ^$fork_point This allows us to correctly handle the scenario where we have the following topology: C --- D --- E <- dev / B <- master@{1} / o --- B' --- C* --- D* <- master where: - B' is a fixed-up version of B that is not patch-identical with B; - C* and D* are patch-identical to C and D respectively and conflict textually if applied in the wrong order; - E depends textually on D. The correct result of `git rebase master dev` is that B is identified as the fork-point of dev and master, so that C, D, E are the commits that need to be replayed onto master; but C and D are patch-identical with C* and D* and so can be dropped, so that the end result is: o --- B' --- C* --- D* --- E <- dev If the fork-point is not identified, then picking B onto a branch containing B' results in a conflict and if the patch-identical commits are not correctly identified then picking C onto a branch containing D (or equivalently D*) results in a conflict. This change allows us to handle both of these cases, where previously we either identified the fork-point (with `--fork-point`) but not the patch-identical commits *or* (with `--no-fork-point`) identified the patch-identical commits but not the fact that master had been rewritten. Reported-by: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-07-17 03:23:49 +08:00
test_expect_success 'cherry-picked commits and fork-point work together' '
git checkout default-base &&
echo Amended >A &&
git commit -a --no-edit --amend &&
test_commit B B &&
test_commit new_B B "New B" &&
test_commit C C &&
git checkout default &&
git reset --hard default-base@{4} &&
test_commit D D &&
git cherry-pick -2 default-base^ &&
test_commit final_B B "Final B" &&
git rebase &&
echo Amended >expect &&
test_cmp expect A &&
rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point When the `--fork-point` argument was added to `git rebase`, we changed the value of $upstream to be the fork point instead of the point from which we want to rebase. When $orig_head..$upstream is empty this does not change the behaviour, but when there are new changes in the upstream we are no longer checking if any of them are patch-identical with changes in $upstream..$orig_head. Fix this by introducing a new variable to hold the fork point and using this to restrict the range as an extra (negative) revision argument so that the set of desired revisions becomes (in fork-point mode): git rev-list --cherry-pick --right-only \ $upstream...$orig_head ^$fork_point This allows us to correctly handle the scenario where we have the following topology: C --- D --- E <- dev / B <- master@{1} / o --- B' --- C* --- D* <- master where: - B' is a fixed-up version of B that is not patch-identical with B; - C* and D* are patch-identical to C and D respectively and conflict textually if applied in the wrong order; - E depends textually on D. The correct result of `git rebase master dev` is that B is identified as the fork-point of dev and master, so that C, D, E are the commits that need to be replayed onto master; but C and D are patch-identical with C* and D* and so can be dropped, so that the end result is: o --- B' --- C* --- D* --- E <- dev If the fork-point is not identified, then picking B onto a branch containing B' results in a conflict and if the patch-identical commits are not correctly identified then picking C onto a branch containing D (or equivalently D*) results in a conflict. This change allows us to handle both of these cases, where previously we either identified the fork-point (with `--fork-point`) but not the patch-identical commits *or* (with `--no-fork-point`) identified the patch-identical commits but not the fact that master had been rewritten. Reported-by: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-07-17 03:23:49 +08:00
echo "Final B" >expect &&
test_cmp expect B &&
rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point When the `--fork-point` argument was added to `git rebase`, we changed the value of $upstream to be the fork point instead of the point from which we want to rebase. When $orig_head..$upstream is empty this does not change the behaviour, but when there are new changes in the upstream we are no longer checking if any of them are patch-identical with changes in $upstream..$orig_head. Fix this by introducing a new variable to hold the fork point and using this to restrict the range as an extra (negative) revision argument so that the set of desired revisions becomes (in fork-point mode): git rev-list --cherry-pick --right-only \ $upstream...$orig_head ^$fork_point This allows us to correctly handle the scenario where we have the following topology: C --- D --- E <- dev / B <- master@{1} / o --- B' --- C* --- D* <- master where: - B' is a fixed-up version of B that is not patch-identical with B; - C* and D* are patch-identical to C and D respectively and conflict textually if applied in the wrong order; - E depends textually on D. The correct result of `git rebase master dev` is that B is identified as the fork-point of dev and master, so that C, D, E are the commits that need to be replayed onto master; but C and D are patch-identical with C* and D* and so can be dropped, so that the end result is: o --- B' --- C* --- D* --- E <- dev If the fork-point is not identified, then picking B onto a branch containing B' results in a conflict and if the patch-identical commits are not correctly identified then picking C onto a branch containing D (or equivalently D*) results in a conflict. This change allows us to handle both of these cases, where previously we either identified the fork-point (with `--fork-point`) but not the patch-identical commits *or* (with `--no-fork-point`) identified the patch-identical commits but not the fact that master had been rewritten. Reported-by: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-07-17 03:23:49 +08:00
echo C >expect &&
test_cmp expect C &&
rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point When the `--fork-point` argument was added to `git rebase`, we changed the value of $upstream to be the fork point instead of the point from which we want to rebase. When $orig_head..$upstream is empty this does not change the behaviour, but when there are new changes in the upstream we are no longer checking if any of them are patch-identical with changes in $upstream..$orig_head. Fix this by introducing a new variable to hold the fork point and using this to restrict the range as an extra (negative) revision argument so that the set of desired revisions becomes (in fork-point mode): git rev-list --cherry-pick --right-only \ $upstream...$orig_head ^$fork_point This allows us to correctly handle the scenario where we have the following topology: C --- D --- E <- dev / B <- master@{1} / o --- B' --- C* --- D* <- master where: - B' is a fixed-up version of B that is not patch-identical with B; - C* and D* are patch-identical to C and D respectively and conflict textually if applied in the wrong order; - E depends textually on D. The correct result of `git rebase master dev` is that B is identified as the fork-point of dev and master, so that C, D, E are the commits that need to be replayed onto master; but C and D are patch-identical with C* and D* and so can be dropped, so that the end result is: o --- B' --- C* --- D* --- E <- dev If the fork-point is not identified, then picking B onto a branch containing B' results in a conflict and if the patch-identical commits are not correctly identified then picking C onto a branch containing D (or equivalently D*) results in a conflict. This change allows us to handle both of these cases, where previously we either identified the fork-point (with `--fork-point`) but not the patch-identical commits *or* (with `--no-fork-point`) identified the patch-identical commits but not the fact that master had been rewritten. Reported-by: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-07-17 03:23:49 +08:00
echo D >expect &&
test_cmp expect D
rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point When the `--fork-point` argument was added to `git rebase`, we changed the value of $upstream to be the fork point instead of the point from which we want to rebase. When $orig_head..$upstream is empty this does not change the behaviour, but when there are new changes in the upstream we are no longer checking if any of them are patch-identical with changes in $upstream..$orig_head. Fix this by introducing a new variable to hold the fork point and using this to restrict the range as an extra (negative) revision argument so that the set of desired revisions becomes (in fork-point mode): git rev-list --cherry-pick --right-only \ $upstream...$orig_head ^$fork_point This allows us to correctly handle the scenario where we have the following topology: C --- D --- E <- dev / B <- master@{1} / o --- B' --- C* --- D* <- master where: - B' is a fixed-up version of B that is not patch-identical with B; - C* and D* are patch-identical to C and D respectively and conflict textually if applied in the wrong order; - E depends textually on D. The correct result of `git rebase master dev` is that B is identified as the fork-point of dev and master, so that C, D, E are the commits that need to be replayed onto master; but C and D are patch-identical with C* and D* and so can be dropped, so that the end result is: o --- B' --- C* --- D* --- E <- dev If the fork-point is not identified, then picking B onto a branch containing B' results in a conflict and if the patch-identical commits are not correctly identified then picking C onto a branch containing D (or equivalently D*) results in a conflict. This change allows us to handle both of these cases, where previously we either identified the fork-point (with `--fork-point`) but not the patch-identical commits *or* (with `--no-fork-point`) identified the patch-identical commits but not the fact that master had been rewritten. Reported-by: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-07-17 03:23:49 +08:00
'
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16 05:36:41 +08:00
test_expect_success 'rebase --apply -q is quiet' '
git checkout -b quiet topic &&
git rebase --apply -q main >output.out 2>&1 &&
test_must_be_empty output.out
'
test_expect_success 'rebase --merge -q is quiet' '
git checkout -B quiet topic &&
git rebase --merge -q main >output.out 2>&1 &&
test_must_be_empty output.out
'
test_expect_success 'rebase --exec -q is quiet' '
git checkout -B quiet topic &&
git rebase --exec true -q main >output.out 2>&1 &&
test_must_be_empty output.out
'
test_expect_success 'Rebase a commit that sprinkles CRs in' '
(
echo "One" &&
echo "TwoQ" &&
echo "Three" &&
echo "FQur" &&
echo "Five"
) | q_to_cr >CR &&
git add CR &&
test_tick &&
git commit -a -m "A file with a line with CR" &&
git tag file-with-cr &&
git checkout HEAD^0 &&
git rebase --onto HEAD^^ HEAD^ &&
git diff --exit-code file-with-cr:CR HEAD:CR
'
test_expect_success 'rebase can copy notes' '
git config notes.rewrite.rebase true &&
git config notes.rewriteRef "refs/notes/*" &&
test_commit n1 &&
test_commit n2 &&
test_commit n3 &&
git notes add -m"a note" n3 &&
git rebase --onto n1 n2 &&
test "a note" = "$(git notes show HEAD)"
'
test_expect_success 'rebase -m can copy notes' '
git reset --hard n3 &&
git rebase -m --onto n1 n2 &&
test "a note" = "$(git notes show HEAD)"
'
test_expect_success 'rebase commit with an ancient timestamp' '
git reset --hard &&
>old.one && git add old.one && test_tick &&
git commit --date="@12345 +0400" -m "Old one" &&
>old.two && git add old.two && test_tick &&
git commit --date="@23456 +0500" -m "Old two" &&
>old.three && git add old.three && test_tick &&
git commit --date="@34567 +0600" -m "Old three" &&
git cat-file commit HEAD^^ >actual &&
grep "author .* 12345 +0400$" actual &&
git cat-file commit HEAD^ >actual &&
grep "author .* 23456 +0500$" actual &&
git cat-file commit HEAD >actual &&
grep "author .* 34567 +0600$" actual &&
git rebase --onto HEAD^^ HEAD^ &&
git cat-file commit HEAD >actual &&
grep "author .* 34567 +0600$" actual
'
test_expect_success 'rebase with "From " line in commit message' '
git checkout -b preserve-from main~1 &&
cat >From_.msg <<EOF &&
Somebody embedded an mbox in a commit message
This is from so-and-so:
From a@b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Doe <nobody@example.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0000
Subject: not this message
something
EOF
>From_ &&
git add From_ &&
git commit -F From_.msg &&
git rebase main &&
git log -1 --pretty=format:%B >out &&
test_cmp From_.msg out
'
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16 05:36:41 +08:00
test_expect_success 'rebase --apply and --show-current-patch' '
test_create_repo conflict-apply &&
(
cd conflict-apply &&
test_commit init &&
echo one >>init.t &&
git commit -a -m one &&
echo two >>init.t &&
git commit -a -m two &&
git tag two &&
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16 05:36:41 +08:00
test_must_fail git rebase --apply -f --onto init HEAD^ &&
GIT_TRACE=1 git rebase --show-current-patch >/dev/null 2>stderr &&
grep "show.*$(git rev-parse two)" stderr
)
'
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16 05:36:41 +08:00
test_expect_success 'rebase --apply and .gitattributes' '
test_create_repo attributes &&
(
cd attributes &&
test_commit init &&
git config filter.test.clean "sed -e '\''s/smudged/clean/g'\''" &&
git config filter.test.smudge "sed -e '\''s/clean/smudged/g'\''" &&
test_commit second &&
git checkout -b test HEAD^ &&
echo "*.txt filter=test" >.gitattributes &&
git add .gitattributes &&
test_commit third &&
echo "This text is smudged." >a.txt &&
git add a.txt &&
test_commit fourth &&
git checkout -b removal HEAD^ &&
git rm .gitattributes &&
git add -u &&
test_commit fifth &&
git cherry-pick test &&
git checkout test &&
git rebase main &&
grep "smudged" a.txt &&
git checkout removal &&
git reset --hard &&
git rebase main &&
grep "clean" a.txt
)
'
test_expect_success 'rebase--merge.sh and --show-current-patch' '
test_create_repo conflict-merge &&
(
cd conflict-merge &&
test_commit init &&
echo one >>init.t &&
git commit -a -m one &&
echo two >>init.t &&
git commit -a -m two &&
git tag two &&
test_must_fail git rebase --merge --onto init HEAD^ &&
git rebase --show-current-patch >actual.patch &&
GIT_TRACE=1 git rebase --show-current-patch >/dev/null 2>stderr &&
grep "show.*REBASE_HEAD" stderr &&
test "$(git rev-parse REBASE_HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse two)"
)
'
test_expect_success 'switch to branch checked out here' '
git checkout main &&
git rebase main main
'
test_expect_success 'switch to branch checked out elsewhere fails' '
test_when_finished "
git worktree remove wt1 &&
git worktree remove wt2 &&
git branch -d shared
" &&
git worktree add wt1 -b shared &&
git worktree add wt2 -f shared &&
# we test in both worktrees to ensure that works
# as expected with "first" and "next" worktrees
test_must_fail git -C wt1 rebase shared shared &&
test_must_fail git -C wt2 rebase shared shared
'
test_expect_success 'switch to branch not checked out' '
git checkout main &&
git branch other &&
git rebase main other
'
rebase: set REF_HEAD_DETACH in checkout_up_to_date() "git rebase A B" where B is not a commit should behave as if the HEAD got detached at B and then the detached HEAD got rebased on top of A. A bug however overwrites the current branch to point at B, when B is a descendant of A (i.e. the rebase ends up being a fast-forward). See [1] for the original bug report. The callstack from checkout_up_to_date() is the following: cmd_rebase() -> checkout_up_to_date() -> reset_head() -> update_refs() -> update_ref() When B is not a valid branch but an oid, rebase sets the head_name of rebase_options to NULL. This value gets passed down this call chain through the branch member of reset_head_opts also getting set to NULL all the way to update_refs(). Then update_refs() checks ropts.branch to decide whether or not to switch branches. If ropts.branch is NULL, it calls update_ref() to update HEAD. At this point however, from rebase's point of view, we want a detached HEAD. But, since checkout_up_to_date() does not set the RESET_HEAD_DETACH flag, the update_ref() call will deference HEAD and update the branch its pointing to. We want the HEAD detached at B instead. Fix this bug by adding the RESET_HEAD_DETACH flag in checkout_up_to_date if B is not a valid branch, so that once reset_head() calls update_refs(), it calls update_ref() with REF_NO_DEREF which updates HEAD directly intead of deferencing it and updating the branch that HEAD points to. Also add a test to ensure the correct behavior. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/YiokTm3GxIZQQUow@newk/ Reported-by: Michael McClimon <michael@mcclimon.org> Signed-off-by: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-03-18 21:54:03 +08:00
test_expect_success 'switch to non-branch detaches HEAD' '
git checkout main &&
old_main=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
git rebase First Second^0 &&
test_cmp_rev HEAD Second &&
test_cmp_rev main $old_main &&
test_must_fail git symbolic-ref HEAD
'
test_expect_success 'refuse to switch to branch checked out elsewhere' '
git checkout main &&
git worktree add wt &&
test_must_fail git -C wt rebase main main 2>err &&
test_grep "already used by worktree at" err &&
test_must_fail git -C wt rebase --quit 2>err &&
test_grep "no rebase in progress" err
'
test_expect_success 'rebase when inside worktree subdirectory' '
git init main-wt &&
(
cd main-wt &&
git commit --allow-empty -m "initial" &&
mkdir -p foo/bar &&
test_commit foo/bar/baz &&
mkdir -p a/b &&
test_commit a/b/c &&
# create another branch for our other worktree
git branch other &&
git worktree add ../other-wt other &&
cd ../other-wt &&
# create and cd into a subdirectory
mkdir -p random/dir &&
cd random/dir &&
# now do the rebase
git rebase --onto HEAD^^ HEAD^ # drops the HEAD^ commit
)
'
test_done