| #!/bin/sh |
| |
| test_description="remember regular & dir renames in sequence of merges" |
| |
| . ./test-lib.sh |
| |
| # |
| # NOTE 1: this testfile tends to not only rename files, but modify on both |
| # sides; without modifying on both sides, optimizations can kick in |
| # which make rename detection irrelevant or trivial. We want to make |
| # sure that we are triggering rename caching rather than rename |
| # bypassing. |
| # |
| # NOTE 2: this testfile uses 'test-tool fast-rebase' instead of either |
| # cherry-pick or rebase. sequencer.c is only superficially |
| # integrated with merge-ort; it calls merge_switch_to_result() |
| # after EACH merge, which updates the index and working copy AND |
| # throws away the cached results (because merge_switch_to_result() |
| # is only supposed to be called at the end of the sequence). |
| # Integrating them more deeply is a big task, so for now the tests |
| # use 'test-tool fast-rebase'. |
| # |
| |
| |
| # |
| # In the following simple testcase: |
| # Base: numbers_1, values_1 |
| # Upstream: numbers_2, values_2 |
| # Topic_1: sequence_3 |
| # Topic_2: scruples_3 |
| # or, in english, rename numbers -> sequence in the first commit, and rename |
| # values -> scruples in the second commit. |
| # |
| # This shouldn't be a challenge, it's just verifying that cached renames isn't |
| # preventing us from finding new renames. |
| # |
| test_expect_success 'caching renames does not preclude finding new ones' ' |
| test_create_repo caching-renames-and-new-renames && |
| ( |
| cd caching-renames-and-new-renames && |
| |
| test_seq 2 10 >numbers && |
| test_seq 2 10 >values && |
| git add numbers values && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| test_seq 1 10 >numbers && |
| test_seq 1 10 >values && |
| git add numbers values && |
| git commit -m "Tweaked both files" && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| test_seq 2 12 >numbers && |
| git add numbers && |
| git mv numbers sequence && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| test_seq 2 12 >values && |
| git add values && |
| git mv values scruples && |
| git commit -m B && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream~1..topic |
| |
| git ls-files >tracked-files && |
| test_line_count = 2 tracked-files && |
| test_seq 1 12 >expect && |
| test_cmp expect sequence && |
| test_cmp expect scruples |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # |
| # In the following testcase: |
| # Base: numbers_1 |
| # Upstream: rename numbers_1 -> sequence_2 |
| # Topic_1: numbers_3 |
| # Topic_2: numbers_1 |
| # or, in english, the first commit on the topic branch modifies numbers by |
| # shrinking it (dramatically) and the second commit on topic reverts its |
| # parent. |
| # |
| # Can git apply both patches? |
| # |
| # Traditional cherry-pick/rebase will fail to apply the second commit, the |
| # one that reverted its parent, because despite detecting the rename from |
| # 'numbers' to 'sequence' for the first commit, it fails to detect that |
| # rename when picking the second commit. That's "reasonable" given the |
| # dramatic change in size of the file, but remembering the rename and |
| # reusing it is reasonable too. |
| # |
| # We do test here that we expect rename detection to only be run once total |
| # (the topic side of history doesn't need renames, and with caching we |
| # should be able to only run rename detection on the upstream side one |
| # time.) |
| test_expect_success 'cherry-pick both a commit and its immediate revert' ' |
| test_create_repo pick-commit-and-its-immediate-revert && |
| ( |
| cd pick-commit-and-its-immediate-revert && |
| |
| test_seq 11 30 >numbers && |
| git add numbers && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| test_seq 1 30 >numbers && |
| git add numbers && |
| git mv numbers sequence && |
| git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) numbers -> sequence" && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| test_seq 11 13 >numbers && |
| git add numbers && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| git revert HEAD && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream~1..topic && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 1 calls |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # |
| # In the following testcase: |
| # Base: sequence_1 |
| # Upstream: rename sequence_1 -> values_2 |
| # Topic_1: rename sequence_1 -> values_3 |
| # Topic_2: add unrelated sequence_4 |
| # or, in english, both sides rename sequence -> values, and then the second |
| # commit on the topic branch adds an unrelated file called sequence. |
| # |
| # This testcase presents no problems for git traditionally, but having both |
| # sides do the same rename in effect "uses it up" and if it remains cached, |
| # could cause a spurious rename/add conflict. |
| # |
| test_expect_success 'rename same file identically, then reintroduce it' ' |
| test_create_repo rename-rename-1to1-then-add-old-filename && |
| ( |
| cd rename-rename-1to1-then-add-old-filename && |
| |
| test_seq 3 8 >sequence && |
| git add sequence && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| test_seq 1 8 >sequence && |
| git add sequence && |
| git mv sequence values && |
| git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) sequence -> values" && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| test_seq 3 10 >sequence && |
| git add sequence && |
| git mv sequence values && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| test_write_lines A B C D E F G H I J >sequence && |
| git add sequence && |
| git commit -m B && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream~1..topic && |
| |
| git ls-files >tracked && |
| test_line_count = 2 tracked && |
| test_path_is_file values && |
| test_path_is_file sequence && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 2 calls |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # |
| # In the following testcase: |
| # Base: olddir/{valuesZ_1, valuesY_1, valuesX_1} |
| # Upstream: rename olddir/valuesZ_1 -> dirA/valuesZ_2 |
| # rename olddir/valuesY_1 -> dirA/valuesY_2 |
| # rename olddir/valuesX_1 -> dirB/valuesX_2 |
| # Topic_1: rename olddir/valuesZ_1 -> dirA/valuesZ_3 |
| # rename olddir/valuesY_1 -> dirA/valuesY_3 |
| # Topic_2: add olddir/newfile |
| # Expected Pick1: dirA/{valuesZ, valuesY}, dirB/valuesX |
| # Expected Pick2: dirA/{valuesZ, valuesY}, dirB/{valuesX, newfile} |
| # |
| # This testcase presents no problems for git traditionally, but having both |
| # sides do the same renames in effect "use it up" but if the renames remain |
| # cached, the directory rename could put newfile in the wrong directory. |
| # |
| test_expect_success 'rename same file identically, then add file to old dir' ' |
| test_create_repo rename-rename-1to1-then-add-file-to-old-dir && |
| ( |
| cd rename-rename-1to1-then-add-file-to-old-dir && |
| |
| mkdir olddir/ && |
| test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesZ && |
| test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesY && |
| test_seq 3 8 >olddir/valuesX && |
| git add olddir && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesZ && |
| test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesY && |
| test_seq 1 8 >olddir/valuesX && |
| git add olddir && |
| mkdir dirA && |
| git mv olddir/valuesZ olddir/valuesY dirA && |
| git mv olddir/ dirB/ && |
| git commit -m "Renamed (and modified) values*" && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| test_seq 3 10 >olddir/valuesZ && |
| test_seq 3 10 >olddir/valuesY && |
| git add olddir && |
| mkdir dirA && |
| git mv olddir/valuesZ olddir/valuesY dirA && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| >olddir/newfile && |
| git add olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m B && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| git config merge.directoryRenames true && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream~1..topic && |
| |
| git ls-files >tracked && |
| test_line_count = 4 tracked && |
| test_path_is_file dirA/valuesZ && |
| test_path_is_file dirA/valuesY && |
| test_path_is_file dirB/valuesX && |
| test_path_is_file dirB/newfile && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 3 calls |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # |
| # In the following testcase, upstream renames a directory, and the topic branch |
| # first adds a file to the directory, then later renames the directory |
| # differently: |
| # Base: olddir/a |
| # olddir/b |
| # Upstream: rename olddir/ -> newdir/ |
| # Topic_1: add olddir/newfile |
| # Topic_2: rename olddir/ -> otherdir/ |
| # |
| # Here we are just concerned that cached renames might prevent us from seeing |
| # the rename conflict, and we want to ensure that we do get a conflict. |
| # |
| # While at it, though, we do test that we only try to detect renames 2 |
| # times and not three. (The first merge needs to detect renames on the |
| # upstream side. Traditionally, the second merge would need to detect |
| # renames on both sides of history, but our caching of upstream renames |
| # should avoid the need to re-detect upstream renames.) |
| # |
| test_expect_success 'cached dir rename does not prevent noticing later conflict' ' |
| test_create_repo dir-rename-cache-not-occluding-later-conflict && |
| ( |
| cd dir-rename-cache-not-occluding-later-conflict && |
| |
| mkdir olddir && |
| test_seq 3 10 >olddir/a && |
| test_seq 3 10 >olddir/b && |
| git add olddir && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| test_seq 3 10 >olddir/a && |
| test_seq 3 10 >olddir/b && |
| git add olddir && |
| git mv olddir newdir && |
| git commit -m "Dir renamed" && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| >olddir/newfile && |
| git add olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| test_seq 1 8 >olddir/a && |
| test_seq 1 8 >olddir/b && |
| git add olddir && |
| git mv olddir otherdir && |
| git commit -m B && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| git config merge.directoryRenames true && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test_must_fail test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic >output && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && |
| |
| grep CONFLICT..rename/rename output && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 2 calls |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # Helper for the next two tests |
| test_setup_upstream_rename () { |
| test_create_repo $1 && |
| ( |
| cd $1 && |
| |
| test_seq 3 8 >somefile && |
| test_seq 3 8 >relevant-rename && |
| git add somefile relevant-rename && |
| mkdir olddir && |
| test_write_lines a b c d e f g >olddir/a && |
| test_write_lines z y x w v u t >olddir/b && |
| git add olddir && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| test_seq 1 8 >somefile && |
| test_seq 1 8 >relevant-rename && |
| git add somefile relevant-rename && |
| git mv relevant-rename renamed && |
| echo h >>olddir/a && |
| echo s >>olddir/b && |
| git add olddir && |
| git mv olddir newdir && |
| git commit -m "Dir renamed" |
| ) |
| } |
| |
| # |
| # In the following testcase, upstream renames a file in the toplevel directory |
| # as well as its only directory: |
| # Base: relevant-rename_1 |
| # somefile |
| # olddir/a |
| # olddir/b |
| # Upstream: rename relevant-rename_1 -> renamed_2 |
| # rename olddir/ -> newdir/ |
| # Topic_1: relevant-rename_3 |
| # Topic_2: olddir/newfile_1 |
| # Topic_3: olddir/newfile_2 |
| # |
| # In this testcase, since the first commit being picked only modifies a |
| # file in the toplevel directory, the directory rename is irrelevant for |
| # that first merge. However, we need to notice the directory rename for |
| # the merge that picks the second commit, and we don't want the third |
| # commit to mess up its location either. We want to make sure that |
| # olddir/newfile doesn't exist in the result and that newdir/newfile does. |
| # |
| # We also test that we only do rename detection twice. We never need |
| # rename detection on the topic side of history, but we do need it twice on |
| # the upstream side of history. For the first topic commit, we only need |
| # the |
| # relevant-rename -> renamed |
| # rename, because olddir is unmodified by Topic_1. For Topic_2, however, |
| # the new file being added to olddir means files that were previously |
| # irrelevant for rename detection are now relevant, forcing us to repeat |
| # rename detection for the paths we don't already have cached. Topic_3 also |
| # tweaks olddir/newfile, but the renames in olddir/ will have been cached |
| # from the second rename detection run. |
| # |
| test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then add new file to old dir' ' |
| test_setup_upstream_rename dir-rename-unneeded-until-new-file && |
| ( |
| cd dir-rename-unneeded-until-new-file && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| test_seq 3 10 >relevant-rename && |
| git add relevant-rename && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| echo foo >olddir/newfile && |
| git add olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m B && |
| |
| echo bar >>olddir/newfile && |
| git add olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m C && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| git config merge.directoryRenames true && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 2 calls && |
| |
| git ls-files >tracked && |
| test_line_count = 5 tracked && |
| test_path_is_missing olddir/newfile && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/newfile |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # |
| # The following testcase is *very* similar to the last one, but instead of |
| # adding a new olddir/newfile, it renames somefile -> olddir/newfile: |
| # Base: relevant-rename_1 |
| # somefile_1 |
| # olddir/a |
| # olddir/b |
| # Upstream: rename relevant-rename_1 -> renamed_2 |
| # rename olddir/ -> newdir/ |
| # Topic_1: relevant-rename_3 |
| # Topic_2: rename somefile -> olddir/newfile_2 |
| # Topic_3: modify olddir/newfile_3 |
| # |
| # In this testcase, since the first commit being picked only modifies a |
| # file in the toplevel directory, the directory rename is irrelevant for |
| # that first merge. However, we need to notice the directory rename for |
| # the merge that picks the second commit, and we don't want the third |
| # commit to mess up its location either. We want to make sure that |
| # neither somefile or olddir/newfile exists in the result and that |
| # newdir/newfile does. |
| # |
| # This testcase needs one more call to rename detection than the last |
| # testcase, because of the somefile -> olddir/newfile rename in Topic_2. |
| test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then rename existing file into old dir' ' |
| test_setup_upstream_rename dir-rename-unneeded-until-file-moved-inside && |
| ( |
| cd dir-rename-unneeded-until-file-moved-inside && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| test_seq 3 10 >relevant-rename && |
| git add relevant-rename && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| test_seq 1 10 >somefile && |
| git add somefile && |
| git mv somefile olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m B && |
| |
| test_seq 1 12 >olddir/newfile && |
| git add olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m C && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| git config merge.directoryRenames true && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 3 calls && |
| |
| test_path_is_missing somefile && |
| test_path_is_missing olddir/newfile && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/newfile && |
| git ls-files >tracked && |
| test_line_count = 4 tracked |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # Helper for the next two tests |
| test_setup_topic_rename () { |
| test_create_repo $1 && |
| ( |
| cd $1 && |
| |
| test_seq 3 8 >somefile && |
| mkdir olddir && |
| test_seq 3 8 >olddir/a && |
| echo b >olddir/b && |
| git add olddir somefile && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| test_seq 1 8 >somefile && |
| test_seq 1 8 >olddir/a && |
| git add somefile olddir/a && |
| git mv olddir newdir && |
| git commit -m "Dir renamed" && |
| |
| test_seq 1 10 >somefile && |
| git add somefile && |
| mkdir olddir && |
| >olddir/unrelated-file && |
| git add olddir && |
| git commit -m "Unrelated file in recreated old dir" |
| ) |
| } |
| |
| # |
| # In the following testcase, the first commit on the topic branch renames |
| # a directory, while the second recreates the old directory and places a |
| # file into it: |
| # Base: somefile |
| # olddir/a |
| # olddir/b |
| # Upstream: olddir/newfile |
| # Topic_1: somefile_2 |
| # rename olddir/ -> newdir/ |
| # Topic_2: olddir/unrelated-file |
| # |
| # Note that the first pick should merge: |
| # Base: somefile |
| # olddir/{a,b} |
| # Upstream: olddir/newfile |
| # Topic_1: rename olddir/ -> newdir/ |
| # For which the expected result (assuming merge.directoryRenames=true) is |
| # clearly: |
| # Result: somefile |
| # newdir/{a, b, newfile} |
| # |
| # While the second pick does the following three-way merge: |
| # Base (Topic_1): somefile |
| # newdir/{a,b} |
| # Upstream (Result from 1): same files as base, but adds newdir/newfile |
| # Topic_2: same files as base, but adds olddir/unrelated-file |
| # |
| # The second merge is pretty trivial; upstream adds newdir/newfile, and |
| # topic_2 adds olddir/unrelated-file. We're just testing that we don't |
| # accidentally cache directory renames somehow and rename |
| # olddir/unrelated-file to newdir/unrelated-file. |
| # |
| # This testcase should only need one call to diffcore_rename_extended(). |
| test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 1' ' |
| test_setup_topic_rename cache-renames-only-upstream-add-file && |
| ( |
| cd cache-renames-only-upstream-add-file && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| |
| >olddir/newfile && |
| git add olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m "Add newfile" && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| |
| git config merge.directoryRenames true && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 1 calls && |
| |
| git ls-files >tracked && |
| test_line_count = 5 tracked && |
| test_path_is_missing newdir/unrelated-file && |
| test_path_is_file olddir/unrelated-file && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/newfile && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/b && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/a && |
| test_path_is_file somefile |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # |
| # The following testcase is *very* similar to the last one, but instead of |
| # adding a new olddir/newfile, it renames somefile -> olddir/newfile: |
| # Base: somefile |
| # olddir/a |
| # olddir/b |
| # Upstream: somefile_1 -> olddir/newfile |
| # Topic_1: rename olddir/ -> newdir/ |
| # somefile_2 |
| # Topic_2: olddir/unrelated-file |
| # somefile_3 |
| # |
| # Much like the previous test, this case is actually trivial and we are just |
| # making sure there isn't some spurious directory rename caching going on |
| # for the wrong side of history. |
| # |
| # |
| # This testcase should only need two calls to diffcore_rename_extended(), |
| # both for the first merge, one for each side of history. |
| # |
| test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 2' ' |
| test_setup_topic_rename cache-renames-only-upstream-rename-file && |
| ( |
| cd cache-renames-only-upstream-rename-file && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| |
| git mv somefile olddir/newfile && |
| git commit -m "Add newfile" && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| |
| git config merge.directoryRenames true && |
| |
| GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && |
| export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && |
| |
| test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && |
| #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && |
| |
| grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && |
| test_line_count = 2 calls && |
| |
| git ls-files >tracked && |
| test_line_count = 4 tracked && |
| test_path_is_missing newdir/unrelated-file && |
| test_path_is_file olddir/unrelated-file && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/newfile && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/b && |
| test_path_is_file newdir/a |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| # |
| # The following testcase just creates two simple renames (slightly modified |
| # on both sides but without conflicting changes), and a directory full of |
| # files that are otherwise uninteresting. The setup is as follows: |
| # |
| # base: unrelated/<BUNCH OF FILES> |
| # numbers |
| # values |
| # upstream: modify: numbers |
| # modify: values |
| # topic: add: unrelated/foo |
| # modify: numbers |
| # modify: values |
| # rename: numbers -> sequence |
| # rename: values -> progression |
| # |
| # This is a trivial rename case, but we're curious what happens with a very |
| # low renameLimit interacting with the restart optimization trying to notice |
| # that unrelated/ looks like a trivial merge candidate. |
| # |
| test_expect_success 'avoid assuming we detected renames' ' |
| git init redo-weirdness && |
| ( |
| cd redo-weirdness && |
| |
| mkdir unrelated && |
| for i in $(test_seq 1 10) |
| do |
| >unrelated/$i |
| done && |
| test_seq 2 10 >numbers && |
| test_seq 12 20 >values && |
| git add numbers values unrelated/ && |
| git commit -m orig && |
| |
| git branch upstream && |
| git branch topic && |
| |
| git switch upstream && |
| test_seq 1 10 >numbers && |
| test_seq 11 20 >values && |
| git add numbers && |
| git commit -m "Some tweaks" && |
| |
| git switch topic && |
| |
| >unrelated/foo && |
| test_seq 2 12 >numbers && |
| test_seq 12 22 >values && |
| git add numbers values unrelated/ && |
| git mv numbers sequence && |
| git mv values progression && |
| git commit -m A && |
| |
| # |
| # Actual testing |
| # |
| |
| git switch --detach topic^0 && |
| |
| test_must_fail git -c merge.renameLimit=1 rebase upstream && |
| |
| git ls-files -u >actual && |
| ! test_file_is_empty actual |
| ) |
| ' |
| |
| test_done |