copies: reinstall initial empty files for chained copied
This effectively back out changeset deeb215be337. Changeset deeb215be337 does not really include a justification for its change and make mes uncomfortable. I have been thinking about it and they are two options: - either having empty/full files does not make a difference, and deeb215be337 is a gratuitous changes. - either having empty/full files do make a difference and deeb215be337 silently change the test coverage. In such situation if we want the "not empty" case to be tested, we should add new cases to cover them In practice, we know that the "file content did not change, but merge still need to create a new filenode" case exists (for example if merging result in similar content but both parent of the file need to be recorded), and that such case are easy to miss/mess-up in the tests. Having all the file using the same (empty) content was done on purpose to increase the coverage of such corner case. As a result I am reinstalling the previous test situation. If we want to increase the coverage of some case involving content-merge in test-copies-chain-merge.t, we should add a new, dedicated, cases. For the current work, it is much more likely to have the corner case broken with the common case working than the corner case working and the common case broken (cf the next paragraph). So testing the corner case is more important. I also suspect that the common case (merge changing the content) is already covered in `test-copies-chain-merge.t` or elsewhere but I did not had time to investigate this in details. I am planning to do a extensive pass on the copy tracing testing to make sure all case we gathered along the way are properly documented and tested (I am keeping a list). However they are a lot of things to do regarding copy tracing and my bandwidth is limited. I am currently focussing on testing and fixing more important (and currently known to be broken) cases. Doing so has a large impact on the output of the "copy info in changeset extra" variant added in 5e72827dae1e (2 changesets after deeb215be337). It seems to highlight various breakage when merge without content change are involved, this is a good example of why we want to explicitly test theses cases. Because the different -do- matters a lot. Fixing the "copy info in changeset extra" is not a priority here. because (1) this changeset does not break anything, it only highlight that they were always broken. (2) the only people using "copy info in changeset extra" do not have merge. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9587
Loading
Please register or sign in to comment