commit fd53b7ffd1bd499d24fa48b43a79703355bde512
author Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Thu Apr 19 10:58:16 2018 -0700
committer Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Tue May 08 16:11:00 2018 +0900
tree 6e474c8ce779ad0001b75393f2d61d0e586acaf8
parent 6e7e027fe5f4a8d61597a86e7f2b6087e23a759c

merge-recursive: improve add_cacheinfo error handling

Four closely related changes all with the purpose of fixing error handling
in this function:
  - fix reported function name in add_cacheinfo error messages
  - differentiate between the two error messages
  - abort early when we hit the error (stop ignoring return code)
  - mark a test which was hitting this error as failing until we get the
    right fix

In more detail...

In commit 0424138d5715 ("Fix bogus error message from merge-recursive
error path", 2007-04-01), it was noted that the name of the function which
the error message claimed it was reported from did not match the actual
function name.  This was changed to something closer to the real function
name, but it still didn't match the actual function name.  Fix the
reported name to match.

Second, the two errors in this function had identical messages, preventing
us from knowing which error had been triggered.  Add a couple words to the
second error message to differentiate the two.

Next, make sure callers do not ignore the return code so that it will stop
processing further entries (processing further entries could result in
more output which could cause the error to scroll off the screen, or at
least be missed by the user) and make it clear the error is the cause of
the early abort.  These errors should never be triggered in production; if
either one is, it represents a bug in the calling path somewhere and is
likely to have resulted in mis-merged content.  The combination of
ignoring of the return code and continuing to print other standard
messages after hitting the error resulted in the following bug report from
Junio: "...the command pretends that everything went well and merged
cleanly in that path...[Behaving] in a buggy and unexplainable way is bad
enough, doing so silently is unexcusable."  Fix this.

Finally, there was one test in the testsuite that did hit this error path,
but was passing anyway.  This would have been easy to miss since it had a
test_must_fail and thus could have failed for the wrong reason, but in a
separate testing step I added an intentional NULL-dereference to the
codepath where these error messages are printed in order to flush out such
cases.  I could modify that test to explicitly check for this error and
fail the test if it is hit, but since this test operates in a bit of a
gray area and needed other changes, I went for a different fix.  The gray
area this test operates in is the following: If the merge of a certain
file results in the same version of the file that existed in HEAD, but
there are dirty modifications to the file, is that an error with a
"Refusing to overwrite existing file" expected, or a case where the merge
should succeed since we shouldn't have to touch the dirty file anyway?
Recent discussion on the list leaned towards saying it should be a
success.  Therefore, change the expected behavior of this test to match.
As a side effect, this makes the failed-due-to-hitting-add_cacheinfo-error
very clear, and we can mark the test as test_expect_failure.  A subsequent
commit will implement the necessary changes to get this test to pass
again.

Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>