aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/merge-ort.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2026-02-21merge-ort: prevent the_repository from coming backElijah Newren
Due to the use of DEFAULT_ABBREV, we cannot get rid of our usage of USE_THE_REPOSITORY_VARIABLE. However, we have removed all other uses of the_repository in merge-ort a few times. But they keep coming back. Define the_repository to make it a compilation error so that they don't come back any more. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-02-21merge-ort: replace the_hash_algo with opt->repo->hash_algoElijah Newren
We have a perfectly valid repository available and do not need to use the_hash_algo (a shorthand for the_repository->hash_algo), so use the known repository instead. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-02-21merge-ort: replace the_repository with opt->repoElijah Newren
We have a perfectly valid repository available and do not need to use the_repository. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-02-21merge-ort: pass repository to write_tree()Elijah Newren
In order to get rid of a usage of the_repository, we need to know the value of opt->repo; pass it along to write_tree(). Once we have the repository, though, we no longer need to pass opt->repo->hash_algo->rawsz, we can have write_tree() look up that value itself. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-02-21merge,diff: remove the_repository check before prefetching blobsElijah Newren
Prefetching of blobs from promisor remotes was added to diff in 7fbbcb21b162 (diff: batch fetching of missing blobs, 2019-04-05). In that commit, https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190405170934.20441-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/ was squashed into https://lore.kernel.org/git/44de02e584f449481e6fb00cf35d74adf0192e9d.1553895166.git.jonathantanmy@google.com/ without the extra explanation about the squashed changes being added to the commit message; in particular, this explanation from that first link is absent: > Also, prefetch only if the repository being diffed is the_repository > (because we do not support lazy fetching for any other repository > anyway). Then, later, this checking was spread from diff.c to diffcore-rename.c and diffcore-break.c by 95acf11a3dc3 (diff: restrict when prefetching occurs, 2020-04-07) and then further split in d331dd3b0c82 (diffcore-rename: allow different missing_object_cb functions, 2021-06-22). I also copied the logic from prefetching blobs from diff.c to merge-ort.c in 2bff554b23e8 (merge-ort: add prefetching for content merges, 2021-06-22). The reason for all these checks was noted above -- we only supported lazy fetching for the_repository. However, that changed with ef830cc43412 (promisor-remote: teach lazy-fetch in any repo, 2021-06-17), so these checks are now unnecessary. Remove them. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-02-17Merge branch 'rs/xdiff-wo-the-repository'Junio C Hamano
Reduce dependency on the_repository of xdiff-interface layer. * rs/xdiff-wo-the-repository: xdiff-interface: stop using the_repository
2026-02-13Merge branch 'ps/commit-list-functions-renamed'Junio C Hamano
Rename three functions around the commit_list data structure. * ps/commit-list-functions-renamed: commit: rename `free_commit_list()` to conform to coding guidelines commit: rename `reverse_commit_list()` to conform to coding guidelines commit: rename `copy_commit_list()` to conform to coding guidelines
2026-02-10xdiff-interface: stop using the_repositoryRené Scharfe
Use the algorithm-agnostic is_null_oid() and push the dependency of read_mmblob() on the_repository->objects to its callers. This allows it to be used with arbitrary object databases. Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-02-05global: constify some pointers that are not written toCollin Funk
The recent glibc 2.43 release had the following change listed in its NEWS file: For ISO C23, the functions bsearch, memchr, strchr, strpbrk, strrchr, strstr, wcschr, wcspbrk, wcsrchr, wcsstr and wmemchr that return pointers into their input arrays now have definitions as macros that return a pointer to a const-qualified type when the input argument is a pointer to a const-qualified type. When compiling with GCC 15, which defaults to -std=gnu23, this causes many warnings like this: merge-ort.c: In function ‘apply_directory_rename_modifications’: merge-ort.c:2734:36: warning: initialization discards ‘const’ qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers] 2734 | char *last_slash = strrchr(cur_path, '/'); | ^~~~~~~ This patch fixes the more obvious ones by making them const when we do not write to the returned pointer. Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-01-15commit: rename `free_commit_list()` to conform to coding guidelinesPatrick Steinhardt
Our coding guidelines say that: Functions that operate on `struct S` are named `S_<verb>()` and should generally receive a pointer to `struct S` as first parameter. While most of the functions related to `struct commit_list` already follow that naming schema, `free_commit_list()` doesn't. Rename the function to address this and adjust all of its callers. Add a compatibility wrapper for the old function name to ease the transition and avoid any semantic conflicts with in-flight patch series. This wrapper will be removed once Git 2.53 has been released. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-01-15commit: rename `reverse_commit_list()` to conform to coding guidelinesPatrick Steinhardt
Our coding guidelines say that: Functions that operate on `struct S` are named `S_<verb>()` and should generally receive a pointer to `struct S` as first parameter. While most of the functions related to `struct commit_list` already follow that naming schema, `reverse_commit_list()` doesn't. Rename the function to address this and adjust all of its callers. Add a compatibility wrapper for the old function name to ease the transition and avoid any semantic conflicts with in-flight patch series. This wrapper will be removed once Git 2.53 has been released. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-01-15commit: rename `copy_commit_list()` to conform to coding guidelinesPatrick Steinhardt
Our coding guidelines say that: Functions that operate on `struct S` are named `S_<verb>()` and should generally receive a pointer to `struct S` as first parameter. While most of the functions related to `struct commit_list` already follow that naming schema, `copy_commit_list()` doesn't. Rename the function to address this and adjust all of its callers. Add a compatibility wrapper for the old function name to ease the transition and avoid any semantic conflicts with in-flight patch series. This wrapper will be removed once Git 2.53 has been released. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-01-09cocci: convert parse_tree functions to repo_ variantsRené Scharfe
Add and apply a semantic patch to convert calls to parse_tree() and friends to the corresponding variant that takes a repository argument, to allow the functions that implicitly use the_repository to be retired once all potential in-flight topics are settled and converted as well. The changes in .c files were generated by Coccinelle, but I fixed a whitespace bug it would have introduced to builtin/commit.c. Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2026-01-08Merge branch 'en/ort-recursive-d-f-conflict-fix'Junio C Hamano
The ort merge machinery hit an assertion failure in a history with criss-cross merges renamed a directory and a non-directory, which has been corrected. * en/ort-recursive-d-f-conflict-fix: merge-ort: fix corner case recursive submodule/directory conflict handling
2025-12-30merge-ort: fix corner case recursive submodule/directory conflict handlingElijah Newren
At GitHub, a few repositories were triggering errors of the form: git: merge-ort.c:3037: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean' failed. Aborted (core dumped) While these may look similar to both a562d90a350d (merge-ort: fix failing merges in special corner case, 2025-11-03) and f6ecb603ff8a (merge-ort: fix directory rename on top of source of other rename/delete, 2025-08-06) the cause is different and in this case the problem is not an over-conservative assertion, but a bug before the assertion where we did not update all relevant state appropriately. It sadly took me a really long time to figure out how to get a simple reproducer for this one. It doesn't really have that many moving parts, but there are multiple pieces of background information needed to understand it. First of all, when we have two files added at the same path, merge-ort does a two-way merge of those files. If we have two directories added at the same path, we basically do the same thing (taking the union of files, and two-way merging files with the same name). But two-way merging requires components of the same type. We can't merge the contents of a regular file with a directory, or with a symlink, or with a submodule. Nor can any of those other types be merged with each other, e.g. merging a submodule with a directory is a bad idea. When two paths have the same name but their types do not match, merge-ort is forced to move one of them to an alternate filename (using the unique_path() function). Second, if two commits being merged have more than one merge-base, merge-ort will merge the merge-bases to create a virtual merge-base, and use that as the base commit. Third, one of the really important optimizations in merge-ort is trivial tree-level resolution (roughly meaning merging trees without recursing into them). This optimization has some nuance to it that is important to the current bug, and to understand it, it helps to first look at the high-level overview of how merge-ort runs; there are basically three high-level functions that the work is divided between: collect_merge_info() - walks the top-level trees getting individual paths of interest detect_renames() - detect renames between paths in order to match up paths for three-way merging process_entries() - does a few things of interest: * three-way merging of files, * other special handling (e.g. adjusting paths with conflicting types to avoid path collisions) * as it finishes handling all the files within a subdirectory, writes out a new tree object for that directory If it were not for renames, we could just always do tree-level merging whenever the tree on at least one side was unmodified. Unfortunately, we need to recurse into trees to determine whether there are renames. However, we can also do tree-level merging so long as there aren't any *relevant* renames (another merge-ort optimization), which we can determine without recursing into trees. We would also be able to do tree-level merging if we somehow apriori knew what renames existed, by only recursing into the trees which we could otherwise trivially merge if they contained files involved in renames. That might not seem useful, because we need to find out the renames and we have to recurse into trees to do so, but when you find out that the process_entries() step is more computationally expensive than the collect_merge_info() step, it yields an interesting strategy: * run collect_merge_info() * run detect_renames() * cache the renames() * restart -- rerun collect_merge_info(), using the cached renames to only recurse into the needed trees * we already have the renames cached so no need to re-detect * run process_entries() on the reduced list of paths which was implemented back in 7bee6c100431 (merge-ort: avoid recursing into directories when we don't need to, 2021-07-16) Crucially, this restarting only occurs if the number of paths we could skip recursing into exceeds the number we still need to recurse into by some safety factor (wanted_factor in handle_deferred_entries()); forgetting this fact is a great way to repeatedly fail to create a minimal testcase for several days and go down alternate wrong paths). Now, I earlier summarized this optimization as "merging trees without recursing into them", but this optimization does not require that all three sides of history has a directory at a given path. So long as the tree on one side matches the tree in the base version, we can decide to resolve in favor of whatever the other side of history has at that path -- be it a directory, a file, a submodule, or a symlink. Unfortunately, the code in question didn't fully realize this, and was written assuming the base version and both sides would have a directory at the given path, as can be seen by the "ci->filemask == 0" comment in resolve_trivial_directory_merge() that was added as part of 7bee6c100431 (merge-ort: avoid recursing into directories when we don't need to, 2021-07-16). A few additional lines of code are needed to handle cases where we have something other than a directory on the other side of history. But, knowing that resolve_trivial_directory_merge() doesn't have sufficient state updating logic doesn't show us how to trigger a bug without combining with the other bits of information we provided above. Here's a relevant testcase: * branches A & B * commit A1: adds "folder" as a directory with files tracked under it * commit B1: adds "folder" as a submodule * commit A2: merges B1 into A1, keeping "folder" as a directory (and in fact, with no changes to "folder" since A1), discarding the submodule * commit B2: merges A1 into B1, keeping "folder" as a submodule (and in fact, with no changes to "folder" since B1), discarding the directory Here, if we try to merge A2 & B2, the logic proceeds as follows: * we have multiple merge-bases: A1 & B1. So we have to merge those to get a virtual merge base. * due to "folder" as a directory and "folder" as a submodule, the path collision logic triggers and renames "folder" as a submodule to "folder~Temporary merge branch 2" so we can keep it alongside "folder" as a directory. * we now have a virtual merge base (containing both "folder" directory and a "folder~Temporary merge branch 2" submodule) and can now do the outer merge * in the first step of the outer merge, we attempt to defer recursing into folder/ as a directory, but find we need to for rename detection. * in rename detection, we note that "folder~Temporary merge branch 2" has the same hash as "folder" as a submodule in B2, which means we have an exact rename. * after rename detection, we discover no path in folder/ is needed for renames, and so we can cache renames and restart. * after restarting, we avoid recursing into "folder/" and realize we can resolve it trivially since it hasn't been modified. The resolution removes "folder/", leaving us only "folder" as a submodule from commit B2. * After this point, we should have a rename/delete conflict on "folder~Temporary merge branch 2" -> "folder", but our marking of the merge of "folder" as clean broke our ability to handle that and in fact triggers an assertion in process_renames(). When there was a df_conflict (directory/"file" conflict, where "file" could be submodule or regular file or symlink), ensure resolve_trivial_directory_merge() handles it properly. In particular: * do not pre-emptively mark the path as cleanly merged if the remaining path is a file; allow it to be processed in process_entries() later to determine if it was clean * clear the parts of dirmask or filemask corresponding to the matching sides of history, since we are resolving those away * clear the df_conflict bit afterwards; since we cleared away the two matching sides and only have one side left, that one side can't have a directory/file conflict with itself. Also add the above minimal testcase showcasing this bug to t6422, **with a sufficient number of paths under the folder/ directory to actually trigger it**. (I wish I could have all those days back from all the wrong paths I went down due to not having enough files under that directory...) I know this commit has a very high ratio of lines in the commit message to lines of comments, and a relatively high ratio of comments to actual code, but given how long it took me to track down, on the off chance that we ever need to further modify this logic, I wanted it thoroughly documented for future me and for whatever other poor soul might end up needing to read this commit message. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-11-26Merge branch 'ad/blame-diff-algorithm'Junio C Hamano
"git blame" learns "--diff-algorithm=<algo>" option. * ad/blame-diff-algorithm: blame: make diff algorithm configurable xdiff: add 'minimal' to XDF_DIFF_ALGORITHM_MASK
2025-11-17merge-ort: fix failing merges in special corner caseElijah Newren
At GitHub, we had a repository that was triggering git: merge-ort.c:3032: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean` failed. during git replay. This sounds similar to the somewhat recent f6ecb603ff8a (merge-ort: fix directory rename on top of source of other rename/delete, 2025-08-06), but the cause is different. Unlike that case, there are no rename-to-self situations arising in this case, and new to this case it can only be triggered during a replay operation on the 2nd or later commit being replayed, never on the first merge in the sequence. To trigger, the repository needs: * an upstream which: * renames a file to a different directory, e.g. old/file -> new/file * leaves other files remaining in the original directory (so that e.g. "old/" still exists upstream even though file has been removed from it and placed elsewhere) * a topic branch being rebased where: * a commit in the sequence: * modifies old/file * a subsequent commit in the sequence being replayed: * does NOT touch *anything* under new/ * does NOT touch old/file * DOES modify other paths under old/ * does NOT have any relevant renames that we need to detect _anywhere_ elsewhere in the tree (meaning this interacts interestingly with both directory renames and cached renames) In such a case, the assertion will trigger. The fix turns out to be surprisingly simple. I have a very vague recollection that I actually considered whether to add such an if-check years ago when I added the very similar one for oldinfo in 1b6b902d95a5 (merge-ort: process_renames() now needs more defensiveness, 2021-01-19), but I think I couldn't figure out a possible way to trigger it and was worried at the time that if I didn't know how to trigger it then I wasn't so sure that simply skipping it was correct. Waiting did give me a chance to put more thorough tests and checks into place for the rename-to-self cases a few months back, which I might not have found as easily otherwise. Anyway, put the check in place now and add a test that demonstrates the fix. Note that this bug, as demonstrated by the conditions listed above, runs at the intersection of relevant renames, trivial directory resolutions, and cached renames. All three of those optimizations are ones that unfortunately make the code (and testcases!) a bit more complex, and threading all three makes it a bit more so. However, the testcase isn't crazy enough that I'd expect no one to ever hit it in practice, and was confused why we didn't see it before. After some digging, I discovered that merge.directoryRenames=false is a workaround to this bug, and GitHub used that setting until recently (it was a "temporary" match-what-libgit2-does piece of code that lasted years longer than intended). Since the conditions I gave above for triggering this bug rule out the possibility of there being directory renames, one might assume that it shouldn't matter whether you try to detect such renames if there aren't any. However, due to commit a16e8efe5c2b (merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=false, 2025-03-13), the heavy hammer used there means that merge.directoryRenames=false ALSO turns off rename caching, which is critical to triggering the bug. This becomes a bit more than an aside since... Re-reading that old commit, a16e8efe5c2b (merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=false, 2025-03-13), it appears that the solution to this latest bug might have been at least a partial alternative solution to that old commit. And it may have been an improved alternative (or at least help implement one), since it may be able to avoid the heavy-handed disabling of rename cache. That might be an interesting future thing to investigate, but is not critical for the current fix. However, since I spent time digging it all up, at least leave a small comment tweak breadcrumb to help some future reader (myself or others) who wants to dig further to connect the dots a little quicker. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-11-17merge-ort: remove debugging crudElijah Newren
While developing commit a16e8efe5c2b (merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=false, 2025-03-13), I was testing things out and had an extra condition on one of the if-blocks that I occasionally swapped between '&& 0' and '&& 1' to see the effects of the changes. I forgot to remove it before submitting and it wasn't caught in review. Remove it now. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-11-17xdiff: add 'minimal' to XDF_DIFF_ALGORITHM_MASKAntonin Delpeuch
The XDF_DIFF_ALGORITHM_MASK bit mask only includes bits for the patience and histogram diffs, not for the minimal one. This means that when reseting the diff algorithm to the default one, one needs to separately clear the bit for the minimal diff. There are places in the code that fail to do that: merge-ort.c and builtin/merge-file.c. Add the XDF_NEED_MINIMAL bit to the bit mask, and remove the separate clearing of this bit in the places where it hasn't been forgotten. Signed-off-by: Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-10-15Merge branch 'en/ort-rename-fixes' into maint-2.51Junio C Hamano
Various bugs about rename handling in "ort" merge strategy have been fixed. * en/ort-rename-fixes: merge-ort: fix directory rename on top of source of other rename/delete merge-ort: fix incorrect file handling merge-ort: clarify the interning of strings in opt->priv->path t6423: fix missed staging of file in testcases 12i,12j,12k t6423: document two bugs with rename-to-self testcases merge-ort: drop unnecessary temporary in check_for_directory_rename() merge-ort: update comments to modern testfile location
2025-08-21Merge branch 'en/ort-rename-fixes'Junio C Hamano
Various bugs about rename handling in "ort" merge strategy have been fixed. * en/ort-rename-fixes: merge-ort: fix directory rename on top of source of other rename/delete merge-ort: fix incorrect file handling merge-ort: clarify the interning of strings in opt->priv->path t6423: fix missed staging of file in testcases 12i,12j,12k t6423: document two bugs with rename-to-self testcases merge-ort: drop unnecessary temporary in check_for_directory_rename() merge-ort: update comments to modern testfile location
2025-08-07merge-ort: fix directory rename on top of source of other rename/deleteElijah Newren
At GitHub, we've got a real-world repository that has been triggering failures of the form: git: merge-ort.c:3007: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean' failed. which comes from the line: VERIFY_CI(newinfo); Unfortunately, this one has been quite complex to unravel, and is a bit complex to explain. So, I'm going to carefully try to explain each relevant piece needed to understand the fix, then carefully build up from a simple testcase to some of the relevant testcases. == New special case we need to consider == Rename pairs in the diffcore machinery connect the source path of a rename with the destination path of a rename. Since we have rename pairs to consider on both sides of history since the merge base, merging has to consider a few special cases of possible overlap: A) two rename pairs having the same target path B) two rename pairs having the same source path C) the source path of one rename pair being the target path of a different rename pair Some of these came up often enough that we gave them names: A) a rename/rename(2to1) conflict (looks similar to an add/add conflict) B) a rename/rename(1to2) conflict, which represents the same path being renamed differently on the two sides of history C) not yet named merge-ort is well-prepared to handle cases (A) and (B), as was merge-recursive (which was merge-ort's predecessor). Case (C) was briefly considered during the years of merge-recursive maintenance, but the full extent of support it got was a few FIXME/TODO comments littered around the code highlighting some of the places that would probably need to be fixed to support it. When I wrote merge-ort I ignored case (C) entirely, since I believed that case (C) was only possible if we were to support break detection during merges. Not only had break detection never been supported by any merge algorithm, I thought break detection wasn't worth the effort to support in a merge algorithm. However, it turns out that case (C) can be triggered without break detection, if there's enough moving pieces. Before I dive into how to trigger case (C) with directory renames plus other renames, it might be helpful to use a simpler example with break detection first. And before we get to that it may help to explain some more basics of handling renames in the merge algorithm. So, let me first backup and provide a quick refresher on each of * handling renames * what break detection would mean, if supported in merging * handling directory renames From there, I'll build up from a basic directory rename detection case to one that triggers a failure currently. == Handling renames == In the merge machinery when we have a rename of a path A -> B, processing that rename needs to remove path A, and make sure that path B has the relevant information. Note that if the content was also modified on both sides, this may mean that we have 3 different stages that need to be stored at path B instead of having some stored at path A. Having all stages stored at path B makes it much easier for users to investigate and resolve the content conflict associated with a renamed path. For example: * "git status" doesn't have to figure out how to list paths A & B and attempt to connect them for users; it can just list path B. * Users can use "git ls-files -u B" (instead of trying to find the previous name of the file so they can list both, i.e. "git ls-files -u A B") * Users can resolve via "git add B" (without needing to "git rm A") == What break detection would mean == If break detection were supported, we might have cases where A -> B *and* C -> A, meaning that both rename pairs might believe they need to update A. In particular, the processing of A -> B would need to be careful to not clear out all stages of A and mark it resolved, while both renames would need to figure out which stages of A belong with A and which belong with B, so that both paths have the right stages associated with them. merge-ort (like merge-recursive before it) makes no attempt to handle break detection; it runs with break detection turned off. It would need to be retrofitted to handle such cases. == Directory rename detection == If one side of history renames directory D/ -> E/, and the other side of history adds new files to D/, then directory rename detection notices and suggests moving those new files to E/. A similar thing is done for paths renamed into D/, causing them to be transitively renamed into E/. The default in the merge machinery is to report a conflict whenever a directory rename might modify the location of a path, so that users can decide whether they wanted the original path or the directory-rename-induced location. However, that means the default codepath still runs through all the directory rename detection logic, it just supplements it with providing conflict notices when it is done. == Building up increasingly complex testcases == I'll start with a really simple directory rename example, and then slowly add twists that explain new pieces until we get to the problematic cases: === Testcase 1 === Let's start with a concrete example, where particular files/directories of interest that exist or are changed on each side are called out: Original: <nothing of note> our side: rename B/file -> C/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ For this case, we'd expect to see the original B/file appear not at C/file but at A/file. (We would also expect a conflict notice that the user will want to choose between C/file and A/file, but I'm going to ignore conflict notices from here on by assuming merge.directoryRenames is set to `true` rather than `conflict`; the only difference that assumption makes is whether that makes the merge be considered to be conflicted and whether it prints a conflict notice; what is written to the index or working directory is unchanged.) === Testcase 2 === Modify testcase 1 by having A/file exist from the start: Original: A/file exists our side: rename B/file -> C/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ In such a case, to avoid user confusion at what looks kind of like an add/add conflict (even though the original path at A/file was not added by either side of the merge), we turn off directory rename detection for this path and print a "in the way" warning to the user: CONFLICT (implicit dir rename): Existing file/dir ... in the way ... The testcases in section 5 of t6423 explore these in more detail. === Testcase 3 === Let's modify testcase 1 in a slightly different way: have A/file be added by their side rather than it already existing. Original: <nothing of note> our side: rename B/file -> C/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ add A/file In this case, the directory rename detection basically transforms our side's original B/file -> C/file into a B/file -> A/file, and so we get a rename/add conflict, with one version of A/file coming from the renamed file, and another coming from the new A/file, each stored as stages 2 and 3 in conflicts. This kind of add/add conflict is perhaps slightly more complex than a regular add/add conflict, but with the printed messages it makes sense where it came from and we have different stages of the file to work with to resolve the conflict. === Testcase 4 === Let's do something similar to testcase 3, but have the opposite side of history add A/file: Original: <nothing of note> our side: rename B/file -> C/file add A/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ Now if we allow directory rename detection to modify C/file to A/file, then we also get a rename/add conflict, but in this case we'd need both higher order stages being recorded on side 2, which makes no sense. The index can't store multiple stage 2 entries, and even if we could, it would probably be confusing for users to work with. So, similar to what we do when there was an A/file in the original version, we simply turn off directory rename detection for cases like this and provide the "in the way" CONFLICT notice to the user. === Testcase 5 === We're slowly getting closer. Let's mix it up by having A/file exist at the beginning but not exist on their side: original: A/file exists our side: rename B/file -> C/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ rename A/file -> D/file For this case, you could say that since A/file -> D/file, it's no longer in the way of C/file being moved by directory rename detection to A/file. But that would give us a case where A/file is both the source and the target of a rename, similar to break detection, which the code isn't currently equipped to handle. This is not yet the case that causes current failures; to the current code, this kind of looks like testcase 4 in that A/file is in the way on our side (since A/file was in the original and was umodified by our side). So, it results in a "in the way" notification with directory rename detection being turned off for A/file so that B/file ends up at C/file. Perhaps the resolution could be improved in the future, but our "in the way" checks prevented such problems by noticing that A/file exists on our side and thus turns off directory rename detection from affecting C/file's location. So, while the merge result could be perhaps improved, the fact that this is currently handled by giving the user an "in the way" message gives the user a chance to resolve and prevents the code from tripping itself up. === Testcase 6 === Let's modify testcase 5 a bit more, to also delete A/file on our side: original: A/file exists our side: rename B/file -> C/file delete A/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ rename A/file -> D/file Now the "in the way" logic doesn't detect that there's an A/file in the way (neither side has an A/file anymore), so it's fine to transitively rename C/file further to A/file...except that we end up with A/file being both the source of one rename, and the target of a different rename. Each rename pair tries to handle the resolution of the source and target paths of its own rename. But when we go to process the second rename pair in process_renames(), we do not expect either the source or the destination to be marked as handled already; so, when we hit the sanity checks that these are not handled: VERIFY_CI(oldinfo); VERIFY_CI(newinfo); then one of these is going to throw an assertion failure since the previous rename pair already marked both of its paths as handled. This will give us an error of the form: git: merge-ort.c:3007: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean' failed. This is the failure we're currently triggering, and it fundamentally depends on: * a path existing in the original * that original path being removed or renamed on *both* sides * some kind of directory rename moving some *other* path into that original path This was added as testcase 12q in t6423. === Testcase 7 === Bonus bug found while investigating! Let's go back to the comparison between testcases 2 & 3, and set up a file present on their side that we need to consider: Original: A/file exists our side: rename B/file -> C/file rename A/file -> D/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ Here, there is no A/file in the way on our side like testcase 4. There is an A/file present on their side like testcase 3, which was an add/add conflict, but that's associated with the file be renamed to D/file. So, that really shouldn't be an add/add conflict because we instead want all modes of the original A/file to be transported to D/file. Unfortunately, the current code kind of treats it like an add/add conflict instead...but even worse. There is also a valid mode for A/file in the original, which normally goes to stage 1. However, an add/add conflict should be represented in the index with no mode at stage 1 (for the original side), only modes at stages 2 and 3 (for our and their side), so for an add/add we'd expect that mode for A/file in the original version to be cleared out (or be transported to D/file). Unfortunately, the code currently leaves not only the stage 3 entry for A/file intact, it also leaves the stage 1 entry for A/file. This results in `git ls-files -u A/file` output of the form: 100644 d00491fd7e5bb6fa28c517a0bb32b8b506539d4d 1 A/file 100644 0cfbf08886fca9a91cb753ec8734c84fcbe52c9f 2 A/file 100644 d00491fd7e5bb6fa28c517a0bb32b8b506539d4d 3 A/file This would likely cause users to believe this isn't an add/add conflict; rather, this would lead them to believe that A/file was only modified on our side and that therefore it should not have been a conflict in the first place. And while resolving the conflict in favor of our side is the correct resolution (because stages 1 and 3 should have been cleared out in the first place), this is certainly likely to cause confusion for anyone attempting to investigate why this path was marked as conflicted. This was added as testcase 12p in t6423. == Attempted solutions that I discarded == 1) For each side of history, create a strset of the sources of each rename on the other side of history. Then when using directory renames to modify existing renames, verify that we aren't renaming to a source of another rename. Unfortunately, the "relevant renames" optimization in merge-ort means we often don't detect renames -- we just see a delete and an add -- which is easy to forget and makes debugging testcases harder, but it also turns out that this solution in insufficient to solve the related problems in the area (more on that below). 2) Modify the code to be aware of the possibility of renaming to the source of another side's rename, and make all the conflict resolution logic for each case (including existing rename/rename(2to1) and rename/rename(1to2) cases) handle the additional complexity. It turns out there was much more code to audit than I wanted, for a really niche case. I didn't like how many changes were needed, and aborted. == Solution == We do not want the stages of unrelated files appearing at the same path in the index except when dealing with an add/add conflict. While we previously handled this for stages 2 & 3, we also need to worry about stage 1. So check for a stage 1 index entry being in the way of a directory rename. However, if we can detect that the stage 1 index entry is actually from a related file due to a directory-rename-causes-rename-to-self situation, then we can allow the stage 1 entry to remain. From this wording, you may note that it's not just rename cases that are a problem; bugs could be triggered with directory renames vs simple adds. That leads us to... == Testcases 8+ == Another bonus bug, found via understanding our final solutions (and the failure of our first attempted solution)! Let's tweak testcase 7 a bit: Original: A/file exists our side: delete A/file add -> C/file their side: delete A/file rename C/ -> A/ Here, there doesn't seem to be a big problem. Sure C/file gets modified via the directory rename of C/ -> A/ so that it becomes A/file, but there's no file in the way, right? Actually, here we have a problem that the stage 1 entry of A/file would be combined with the stage 2 entry of C/file, and make it look like a modify/delete conflict. Perhaps there is some extra checking that could be added to the code to make it attempt to clear out the stage 1 entry of A/file, but the various rename-to-self-via-directory-rename testcases make that a bit more difficult. For now, it's easier to just treat this as a path-in-the-way situation and not allow the directory rename to modify C/file. That sounds all well and good, but it does have an interesting side effect. Due to the "relevant renames" optimizations in merge-ort (i.e. only detect the renames you need), 100% renames whose files weren't modified on the other side often go undetected. This means that if we modify this testcase slightly to: Original: A/file exists our side: A/file -> C/file their side: rename C/ -> A/ Then although this looks like where the directory rename just moves C/file back to A/file and there's no problem, we may not detect the A/file -> C/file rename. Instead it will look like a deletion of A/file and an addition of C/file. The directory rename then appears to be moving C/file to A/file, which is on top of an "unrelated" file (or at least a file it doesn't know is related). So, we will report path-in-the-way conflicts now in cases where we didn't before. That's better than silently and accidentally combining stages of unrelated files and making them look like a modify/delete; users can investigate the reported conflict and simply resolve it. This means we tweak the expected solution for testcases 12i, 12j, and 12k. (Those three tests are basically the same test repeated three times, but I was worried when I added those that subtle differences in parent/child, sibling/sibling, and toplevel directories might mess up how rename-to-self testcases actually get handled.) Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-08-07merge-ort: fix incorrect file handlingElijah Newren
We have multiple bugs here -- accidental silent file deletion, accidental silent file retention for files that should be deleted, and incorrect number of entries left in the index. The series merged at commit d3b88be1b450 (Merge branch 'en/merge-dir-rename-corner-case-fix', 2021-07-16) introduced testcase 12i-12k in t6423 which checked for rename-to-self cases, and fixed bugs that merge-ort and merge-recursive had with these testcases. At the time, I noted that merge-ort had one bug for these cases, while merge-recursive had two. It turns out that merge-ort did in fact have another bug, but the "relevant renames" optimizations were masking it. If we modify testcase 12i from t6423 to modify the file in the commit that renames it (but only modify it enough that it can still be detected as a rename), then we can trigger silent deletion of the file. Tweak testcase 12i slightly to make the file in question have more than one line in it. This leaves the testcase intact other than changing the initial contents of this one file. The purpose of this tweak is to minimize the changes between this testcase and a new one that we want to add. Then duplicate testcase 12i as 12i2, changing it so that it adds a single line to the file in question when it is renamed; testcase 12i2 then serves as a testcase for this merge-ort bug that I previously overlooked. Further, commit 98a1a00d5301 (t6423: add a testcase causing a failed assertion in process_renames, 2025-03-06), fixed an issue with rename-to-self but added a new testcase, 12n, that only checked for whether the merge ran to completion. A few commits ago, we modified this test to check for the number of entries in the index -- but noted that the number was wrong. And we also noted a silently-keep-instead-of-delete bug at the same time in the new testcase 12n2. In summary, we have the following bugs with rename-to-self cases: * silent deletion of file expected to be kept (t6423 testcase 12i2) * silent retention of file expected to be removed (t6423 testcase 12n2) * wrong number of extries left in the index (t6423 testcase 12n) All of these bugs arise because in a rename-to-self case, when we have a rename A->B, both A and B name the same file. The code in process_renames() assumes A & B are different, and tries to move the higher order stages and file contents so that they are associated just with the new path, but the assumptions of A & B being different can cause A to be deleted when it's not supposed to be or mark B as resolved and kept in place when it's supposed to be deleted. Since A & B are already the same path in the rename-to-self case, simply skip the steps in process_renames() for such files to fix these bugs. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-08-07merge-ort: clarify the interning of strings in opt->priv->pathElijah Newren
Because merge-ort is dealing with potentially all the pathnames in the repository, it sometimes needs to do an awful lot of string comparisons. Because of this, struct merge_options_internal's path member was envisioned from the beginning to contain an interned value for every path in order to allow us to compare strings via pointer comparison instead of using strcmp. See * 5b59c3db059d (merge-ort: setup basic internal data structures, 2020-12-13) * f591c4724615 (merge-ort: copy and adapt merge_3way() from merge-recursive.c, 2021-01-01) for some of the early comments. However, the original comment was slightly misleading when it switched from mentioning paths to only mentioning directories. Fix that, and while at it also point to an example in the code which applies the extra needed care to permit the pointer comparison optimization. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-08-07merge-ort: drop unnecessary temporary in check_for_directory_rename()Elijah Newren
check_for_directory_rename() had a weirdly coded check for whether a strmap contained a certain key. Replace the temporary variable and call to strmap_get_entry() with the more natural strmap_contains() call. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-08-07merge-ort: update comments to modern testfile locationElijah Newren
In commit 919df3195553 (Collect merge-related tests to t64xx, 2020-08-10), merge related tests were moved from t60xx to t64xx. Some comments in merge-ort relating to some tricky code referenced specific testcases within certain testfiles for additional information, but referred to their historical testfile names; update the testfile names to mention their modern location. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-08-05Merge branch 'ps/object-file-wo-the-repository'Junio C Hamano
Reduce implicit assumption and dependence on the_repository in the object-file subsystem. * ps/object-file-wo-the-repository: object-file: get rid of `the_repository` in index-related functions object-file: get rid of `the_repository` in `force_object_loose()` object-file: get rid of `the_repository` in `read_loose_object()` object-file: get rid of `the_repository` in loose object iterators object-file: remove declaration for `for_each_file_in_obj_subdir()` object-file: inline `for_each_loose_file_in_objdir_buf()` object-file: get rid of `the_repository` when writing objects odb: introduce `odb_write_object()` loose: write loose objects map via their source object-file: get rid of `the_repository` in `finalize_object_file()` object-file: get rid of `the_repository` in `loose_object_info()` object-file: get rid of `the_repository` when freshening objects object-file: inline `check_and_freshen()` functions object-file: get rid of `the_repository` in `has_loose_object()` object-file: stop using `the_hash_algo` object-file: fix -Wsign-compare warnings
2025-07-23config: drop `git_config_get_bool()` wrapperPatrick Steinhardt
In 036876a1067 (config: hide functions using `the_repository` by default, 2024-08-13) we have moved around a bunch of functions in the config subsystem that depend on `the_repository`. Those function have been converted into mere wrappers around their equivalent function that takes in a repository as parameter, and the intent was that we'll eventually remove those wrappers to make the dependency on the global repository variable explicit at the callsite. Follow through with that intent and remove `git_config_get_bool()`. All callsites are adjusted so that they use `repo_config_get_bool(the_repository, ...)` instead. While some callsites might already have a repository available, this mechanical conversion is the exact same as the current situation and thus cannot cause any regression. Those sites should eventually be cleaned up in a later patch series. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-07-23config: drop `git_config_get_int()` wrapperPatrick Steinhardt
In 036876a1067 (config: hide functions using `the_repository` by default, 2024-08-13) we have moved around a bunch of functions in the config subsystem that depend on `the_repository`. Those function have been converted into mere wrappers around their equivalent function that takes in a repository as parameter, and the intent was that we'll eventually remove those wrappers to make the dependency on the global repository variable explicit at the callsite. Follow through with that intent and remove `git_config_get_int()`. All callsites are adjusted so that they use `repo_config_get_int(the_repository, ...)` instead. While some callsites might already have a repository available, this mechanical conversion is the exact same as the current situation and thus cannot cause any regression. Those sites should eventually be cleaned up in a later patch series. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-07-23config: drop `git_config_get_string()` wrapperPatrick Steinhardt
In 036876a1067 (config: hide functions using `the_repository` by default, 2024-08-13) we have moved around a bunch of functions in the config subsystem that depend on `the_repository`. Those function have been converted into mere wrappers around their equivalent function that takes in a repository as parameter, and the intent was that we'll eventually remove those wrappers to make the dependency on the global repository variable explicit at the callsite. Follow through with that intent and remove `git_config_get_string()`. All callsites are adjusted so that they use `repo_config_get_string(the_repository, ...)` instead. While some callsites might already have a repository available, this mechanical conversion is the exact same as the current situation and thus cannot cause any regression. Those sites should eventually be cleaned up in a later patch series. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-07-23config: drop `git_config()` wrapperPatrick Steinhardt
In 036876a1067 (config: hide functions using `the_repository` by default, 2024-08-13) we have moved around a bunch of functions in the config subsystem that depend on `the_repository`. Those function have been converted into mere wrappers around their equivalent function that takes in a repository as parameter, and the intent was that we'll eventually remove those wrappers to make the dependency on the global repository variable explicit at the callsite. Follow through with that intent and remove `git_config()`. All callsites are adjusted so that they use `repo_config(the_repository, ...)` instead. While some callsites might already have a repository available, this mechanical conversion is the exact same as the current situation and thus cannot cause any regression. Those sites should eventually be cleaned up in a later patch series. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-07-16odb: introduce `odb_write_object()`Patrick Steinhardt
We do not have a backend-agnostic way to write objects into an object database. While there is `write_object_file()`, this function is rather specific to the loose object format. Introduce `odb_write_object()` to plug this gap. For now, this function is a simple wrapper around `write_object_file()` and doesn't even use the passed-in object database yet. This will change in subsequent commits, where `write_object_file()` is converted so that it works on top of an `odb_source`. `odb_write_object()` will then become responsible for deciding which source an object shall be written to. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-07-01odb: rename `repo_read_object_file()`Patrick Steinhardt
Rename `repo_read_object_file()` to `odb_read_object()` to match other functions related to the object database and our modern coding guidelines. Introduce a compatibility wrapper so that any in-flight topics will continue to compile. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-07-01odb: rename `oid_object_info()`Patrick Steinhardt
Rename `oid_object_info()` to `odb_read_object_info()` as well as their `_extended()` variant to match other functions related to the object database and our modern coding guidelines. Introduce compatibility wrappers so that any in-flight topics will continue to compile. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-07-01object-store: rename files to "odb.{c,h}"Patrick Steinhardt
In the preceding commits we have renamed the structures contained in "object-store.h" to `struct object_database` and `struct odb_backend`. As such, the code files "object-store.{c,h}" are confusingly named now. Rename them to "odb.{c,h}" accordingly. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-05-16merge-ort: add a new mergeability_only optionElijah Newren
Git Forges may be interested in whether two branches can be merged while not being interested in what the resulting merge tree is nor which files conflicted. For such cases, add a new mergeability_only option. This option allows the merge machinery to, in the "outer layer" of the merge: * exit upon first[-ish] conflict * avoid (not prevent) writing merged blobs/trees to the object store I have a number of qualifiers there, so let me explain each: "outer layer": Note that since the recursive merge of merge bases (corresponding to call_depth > 0) can conflict without the outer final merge (corresponding to call_depth == 0) conflicting, we can't short-circuit nor avoid writing merged blobs/trees to the object store during those inner merges. "first-ish conflict": The current patch only exits early from process_entries() on the first conflict it detects, but conflicts could have been detected in a previous function call, namely detect_and_process_renames(). However: * conflicts detected by detect_and_process_renames() are quite rare conflict types * the detection would still come after regular rename detection (which is the expensive part of detect_and_process_renames()), so it is not saving us much in computation time given that process_entries() directly follows detect_and_process_renames() * [this overlaps with the next bullet point] process_entries() is the place where virtually all object writing occurs (object writing is sometimes more of a concern for Forges than computation time), so exiting early here isn't saving us much in object writes either * the code changes needed to handle an earlier exit are slightly more invasive in detect_and_process_renames() than for process_entries(). Given the rareness of the even earlier conflicts, the limited savings we'd get from exiting even earlier, and in an attempt to keep this patch simpler, we don't guarantee that we actually exit on the first conflict detected. We can always revisit this decision later if we decide that a further micro-optimization to exit slightly earlier in rare cases is worthwhile. "avoid (not prevent) writing objects": The detect_and_process_renames() call can also write objects to the object store, when rename/rename conflicts involve one (or more) files that have also been modified on both sides. Because of this alternate call path leading to handle_content_merges(), our "early exit" does not prevent writing objects entirely, even within the "outer layer" (i.e. even within call_depth == 0). I figure that's fine though, since we're already writing objects for the inner merges (i.e. for call_depth > 0), which are likely going to represent vastly more objects than files involved in rename/rename+modify/modify cases in the outer merge, on average. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-04-24Merge branch 'ps/object-file-cleanup'Junio C Hamano
Code clean-up. * ps/object-file-cleanup: object-store: merge "object-store-ll.h" and "object-store.h" object-store: remove global array of cached objects object: split out functions relating to object store subsystem object-file: drop `index_blob_stream()` object-file: split up concerns of `HASH_*` flags object-file: split out functions relating to object store subsystem object-file: move `xmmap()` into "wrapper.c" object-file: move `git_open_cloexec()` to "compat/open.c" object-file: move `safe_create_leading_directories()` into "path.c" object-file: move `mkdir_in_gitdir()` into "path.c"
2025-04-17Merge branch 'en/merge-recursive-debug'Junio C Hamano
Remove remnants of the recursive merge strategy backend, which was superseded by the ort merge strategy. * en/merge-recursive-debug: builtin/{merge,rebase,revert}: remove GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM tests: remove GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM and test_expect_merge_algorithm merge-recursive.[ch]: thoroughly debug these merge, sequencer: switch recursive merges over to ort sequencer: switch non-recursive merges over to ort merge-ort: enable diff-algorithms other than histogram builtin/merge-recursive: switch to using merge_ort_generic() checkout: replace merge_trees() with merge_ort_nonrecursive()
2025-04-15Merge branch 'ps/object-wo-the-repository'Junio C Hamano
The object layer has been updated to take an explicit repository instance as a parameter in more code paths. * ps/object-wo-the-repository: hash: stop depending on `the_repository` in `null_oid()` hash: fix "-Wsign-compare" warnings object-file: split out logic regarding hash algorithms delta-islands: stop depending on `the_repository` object-file-convert: stop depending on `the_repository` pack-bitmap-write: stop depending on `the_repository` pack-revindex: stop depending on `the_repository` pack-check: stop depending on `the_repository` environment: move access to "core.bigFileThreshold" into repo settings pack-write: stop depending on `the_repository` and `the_hash_algo` object: stop depending on `the_repository` csum-file: stop depending on `the_repository`
2025-04-15object-file: split out functions relating to object store subsystemPatrick Steinhardt
While we have the "object-store.h" header, most of the functionality for object stores is actually hosted in "object-file.c". This makes it hard to find relevant functions and causes us to mix up concerns. Split out functions relating to the object store subsystem into a new "object-store.c" file. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-04-08Merge branch 'ps/object-wo-the-repository' into ps/object-file-cleanupJunio C Hamano
* ps/object-wo-the-repository: hash: stop depending on `the_repository` in `null_oid()` hash: fix "-Wsign-compare" warnings object-file: split out logic regarding hash algorithms delta-islands: stop depending on `the_repository` object-file-convert: stop depending on `the_repository` pack-bitmap-write: stop depending on `the_repository` pack-revindex: stop depending on `the_repository` pack-check: stop depending on `the_repository` environment: move access to "core.bigFileThreshold" into repo settings pack-write: stop depending on `the_repository` and `the_hash_algo` object: stop depending on `the_repository` csum-file: stop depending on `the_repository`
2025-04-08merge-recursive.[ch]: thoroughly debug theseElijah Newren
As a wise man once told me, "Deleted code is debugged code!" So, move the functions that are shared between merge-recursive and merge-ort from the former to the latter, and then debug the remainder of merge-recursive.[ch]. Joking aside, merge-ort was always intended to replace merge-recursive. It has numerous advantages over merge-recursive (operates much faster, can operate without a worktree or index, and fixes a number of known bugs and suboptimal merges). Since we have now replaced all callers of merge-recursive with equivalent functions from merge-ort, move the shared functions from the former to the latter, and delete the remainder of merge-recursive.[ch]. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-04-08merge-ort: enable diff-algorithms other than histogramElijah Newren
The ort merge strategy has always used the histogram diff algorithm. The recursive merge strategy, in contrast, defaults to the myers diff algorithm, while allowing it to be changed. Change the ort merge strategy to allow different diff algorithms, by removing the hard coded value in merge_start() and instead just making it a default in init_merge_options(). Technically, this also changes the default diff algorithm for the recursive backend too, but we're going to remove the final callers of the recursive backend in the next two commits. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-04-08Merge branch 'en/assert-wo-side-effects'Junio C Hamano
Ensure what we write in assert() does not have side effects, and introduce ASSERT() macro to mark those that cannot be mechanically checked for lack of side effects. * en/assert-wo-side-effects: treewide: replace assert() with ASSERT() in special cases ci: add build checking for side-effects in assert() calls git-compat-util: introduce ASSERT() macro
2025-03-29Merge branch 'en/random-cleanups'Junio C Hamano
Miscellaneous code clean-ups. * en/random-cleanups: merge-ort: remove extraneous word in comment merge-ort: fix accidental strset<->strintmap t7615: be more explicit about diff algorithm used t6423: fix a comment that accidentally reversed two commits stash: remove merge-recursive.h include
2025-03-29Merge branch 'en/merge-ort-prepare-to-remove-recursive'Junio C Hamano
First step of deprecating and removing merge-recursive. * en/merge-ort-prepare-to-remove-recursive: am: switch from merge_recursive_generic() to merge_ort_generic() merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=false t3650: document bug when directory renames are turned off merge-ort: support having merge verbosity be set to 0 merge-ort: allow rename detection to be disabled merge-ort: add new merge_ort_generic() function
2025-03-21treewide: replace assert() with ASSERT() in special casesElijah Newren
When the compiler/linker cannot verify that an assert() invocation is free of side effects for us (e.g. because the assertion includes some kind of function call), replace the use of assert() with ASSERT(). Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-03-18merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=falseElijah Newren
There are two issues here. First, when merge.directoryRenames is set to false, there are a few code paths that should be turned off. I missed one; collect_renames() was still doing some directory rename detection logic unconditionally. It ended up not having much effect because get_provisional_directory_renames() was skipped earlier and not setting up renames->dir_renames, but the code should still be skipped. Second, the larger issue is that sometimes we get a cached_pair rename from a previous commit being replayed mapping A->B, but in a subsequent commit but collect_merge_info() doesn't even recurse into the directory containing B because there are no source pairings for that rename that are relevant; we can merge that commit fine without knowing the rename. But since the cached renames are added to the normal renames, when we go to process it and find that B is not part of opt->priv->paths, we hit the assertion error process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && ~newinfo->merged.clean` failed. I think we could fix this at the beginning of detect_regular_renames() by pruning from cached_pairs any entry whose destination isn't in opt->priv->paths, but it's suboptimal in that we'd kind of like the cached_pair to be restored afterwards so that it can help the subsequent commit, but more importantly since it sits at the intersection of the caching renames optimization and the relevant renames optimization, and the trivial directory resolution optimization, and I don't currently have Documentation/technical/remembering-renames.txt fully paged in, I'm not sure if that's a full solution or a bandaid for the current testcase. However, since the remembering renames optimization was the weakest of the set, and the optimization is far less important when directory rename detection is off (as that implies far fewer potential renames), let's just use a bigger hammer to ensure this special case is fixed: turn off the rename caching. We do the same thing already when we encounter rename/rename(1to1) cases (as per `git grep -3 disabling.the.optimization`, though it uses a slightly different triggering mechanism since it's trying to affect the next time that merge_check_renames_reusable() is called), and I think it makes sense to do the same here. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-03-18merge-ort: allow rename detection to be disabledElijah Newren
When merge-ort was written, I did not at first allow rename detection to be disabled, because I suspected that most folks disabling rename detection were doing so solely for performance reasons. Since I put a lot of working into providing dramatic speedups for rename detection performance as used by the merge machinery, I wanted to know if there were still real world repositories where rename detection was problematic from a performance perspective. We have had years now to collect such information, and while we never received one, waiting longer with the option disabled seems unlikely to help surface such issues at this point. Also, there has been at least one request to allow rename detection to be disabled for behavioral rather than performance reasons (see the thread including https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BG-Nx6SCxxkGXn_Fwd2wseifMFND8eddvWxiZVZk0zRaA@mail.gmail.com/ ), so let's start heeding the config and command line settings. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2025-03-18merge-ort: add new merge_ort_generic() functionElijah Newren
merge-recursive.[ch] have three entry points: * merge_trees() * merge_recursive() * merge_recursive_generic() merge-ort*.[ch] only has equivalents for the first two. Add an equivalent for the final entry point, so we can switch callers to use it and remove merge-recursive.[ch]. While porting it over, finally fix the issue with the label for the ancestor (used when merge.conflictStyle=diff3 as a conflict label). merge-recursive.c has traditionally not allowed callers to set that label, but I have found that problematic for years. (Side note: This function was initially part of the merge-ort rewrite, but reviewers questioned the ancestor label funnyness which I was never really happy with anyway. It resulted in me jettisoning it and hoping at the time that I would eventually be able to force the existing callers to use some other API. That worked with `git stash`, as per 874cf2a60444 (stash: apply stash using 'merge_ort_nonrecursive()', 2022-05-10), but this API is the most reasonable one for `git am` and `git merge-recursive`, if we can just allow them some freedom over the ancestor label.) The merge_recursive_generic() function did not know whether it was being invoked by `git stash`, `git merge-recursive`, or `git am`, and the choice of meaningful ancestor label, when there is a unique ancestor, varies for these different callers: * git am: ancestor is a constructed "fake ancestor" that user knows nothing about and has no access to. (And is different than the normal thing we mean by a "virtual merge base" which is the merging of merge bases.) * git merge-recursive: ancestor might be a tree, but at least it was one specified by the user (if they invoked merge-recursive directly) * git stash: ancestor was the commit serving as the stash base Thus, using a label like "constructed merge base" (as merge_recursive_generic() does) presupposes that `git am` is the only caller; it is incorrect for other callers. This label has thrown me off more than once. Allow the caller to override when there is a unique merge base. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>