| Message ID | 91b6768adf2d1777219fb2d83cc2363f1497dbbd.1620094339.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Optimization batch 11: avoid repeatedly detecting same renames | expand |
On 5/3/21 10:12 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> ... > diff --git a/merge-ort.c b/merge-ort.c > index 2fc98b803d1c..17dc3deb3c73 100644 > --- a/merge-ort.c > +++ b/merge-ort.c > @@ -753,15 +753,48 @@ static void add_pair(struct merge_options *opt, > struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames; > int names_idx = is_add ? side : 0; > > - if (!is_add) { > + if (is_add) { > + if (strset_contains(&renames->cached_target_names[side], > + pathname)) > + return; > + } else { > unsigned content_relevant = (match_mask == 0); > unsigned location_relevant = (dir_rename_mask == 0x07); > > + /* > + * If pathname is found in cached_irrelevant[side] due to > + * previous pick but for this commit content is relevant, > + * then we need to remove it from cached_irrelevant. > + */ > + if (content_relevant) > + /* strset_remove is no-op if strset doesn't have key */ > + strset_remove(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side], > + pathname); I see, content can become relevant again. ... > diff --git a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh > index f47d8924ee73..035edc40b1eb 100755 > --- a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh > +++ b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh > @@ -101,10 +101,10 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames does not preclude finding new ones' ' > # dramatic change in size of the file, but remembering the rename and > # reusing it is reasonable too. > # > -# Rename detection (diffcore_rename_extended()) will run twice here; it is > -# not needed on the topic side of history for either of the two commits > -# being merged, but it is needed on the upstream side of history for each > -# commit being picked. > +# 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 && > ( > @@ -140,11 +140,11 @@ test_expect_success 'cherry-pick both a commit and its immediate revert' ' > GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && > export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && > > - test_might_fail test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && > + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && Here is a change of behavior, but it appears to be a good one! > #git cherry-pick upstream~1..topic && > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > - test_line_count = 2 calls > + test_line_count = 1 calls > ) ... > @@ -450,7 +459,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then add new file to old dir' ' > #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > - test_line_count = 3 calls && > + test_line_count = 2 calls && > > git ls-files >tracked && > test_line_count = 5 tracked && > @@ -516,7 +525,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then rename existing file into old dir > #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > - test_line_count = 4 calls && > + test_line_count = 3 calls && I appreciate that this use of tracing demonstrates a change of internal behavior. > test_path_is_missing somefile && > test_path_is_missing olddir/newfile && > @@ -648,9 +657,8 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 1' ' > # for the wrong side of history. > # > # > -# This testcase should only need three calls to diffcore_rename_extended(), > -# because there are no renames on the topic side of history for picking > -# Topic_2. > +# 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 && > @@ -677,7 +685,7 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 2' ' > #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > - test_line_count = 3 calls && > + test_line_count = 2 calls && Same here. As I was reading, I was also thinking that it would be good to have some kind of tracing, if only a summary of how often we relied upon the cached renames. That would present a mechanism for the test cases to verify that the rename cache is behaving as expected, but also provides a way to diagnose any issues that might arise in the future by asking a user to reproduce a problematic rebase/merge with a GIT_TRACE2* target. Such a change would fit as a follow-up, and does not need to insert into an already heavy patch. I have now read all of the patches in this series to the level I can. It's all very deep stuff, so the more we can rely on the tests to show correctness, the better. I appreciate the extra tests that you added, which increases my confidence in the series. Thanks, -Stolee
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 7:23 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/3/21 10:12 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> > ... > > diff --git a/merge-ort.c b/merge-ort.c > > index 2fc98b803d1c..17dc3deb3c73 100644 > > --- a/merge-ort.c > > +++ b/merge-ort.c > > @@ -753,15 +753,48 @@ static void add_pair(struct merge_options *opt, > > struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames; > > int names_idx = is_add ? side : 0; > > > > - if (!is_add) { > > + if (is_add) { > > + if (strset_contains(&renames->cached_target_names[side], > > + pathname)) > > + return; > > + } else { > > unsigned content_relevant = (match_mask == 0); > > unsigned location_relevant = (dir_rename_mask == 0x07); > > > > + /* > > + * If pathname is found in cached_irrelevant[side] due to > > + * previous pick but for this commit content is relevant, > > + * then we need to remove it from cached_irrelevant. > > + */ > > + if (content_relevant) > > + /* strset_remove is no-op if strset doesn't have key */ > > + strset_remove(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side], > > + pathname); > > I see, content can become relevant again. > > ... > > > diff --git a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh > > index f47d8924ee73..035edc40b1eb 100755 > > --- a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh > > +++ b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh > > @@ -101,10 +101,10 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames does not preclude finding new ones' ' > > # dramatic change in size of the file, but remembering the rename and > > # reusing it is reasonable too. > > # > > -# Rename detection (diffcore_rename_extended()) will run twice here; it is > > -# not needed on the topic side of history for either of the two commits > > -# being merged, but it is needed on the upstream side of history for each > > -# commit being picked. > > +# 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 && > > ( > > @@ -140,11 +140,11 @@ test_expect_success 'cherry-pick both a commit and its immediate revert' ' > > GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && > > export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && > > > > - test_might_fail test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && > > + test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && > > Here is a change of behavior, but it appears to be a good one! > > > #git cherry-pick upstream~1..topic && > > > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > > - test_line_count = 2 calls > > + test_line_count = 1 calls > > ) > ... > > @@ -450,7 +459,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then add new file to old dir' ' > > #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && > > > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > > - test_line_count = 3 calls && > > + test_line_count = 2 calls && > > > > git ls-files >tracked && > > test_line_count = 5 tracked && > > @@ -516,7 +525,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then rename existing file into old dir > > #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && > > > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > > - test_line_count = 4 calls && > > + test_line_count = 3 calls && > > I appreciate that this use of tracing demonstrates a change of > internal behavior. > > > test_path_is_missing somefile && > > test_path_is_missing olddir/newfile && > > @@ -648,9 +657,8 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 1' ' > > # for the wrong side of history. > > # > > # > > -# This testcase should only need three calls to diffcore_rename_extended(), > > -# because there are no renames on the topic side of history for picking > > -# Topic_2. > > +# 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 && > > @@ -677,7 +685,7 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 2' ' > > #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && > > > > grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && > > - test_line_count = 3 calls && > > + test_line_count = 2 calls && > > Same here. > > As I was reading, I was also thinking that it would be good to > have some kind of tracing, if only a summary of how often we > relied upon the cached renames. That's an interesting thought. If there are renames that remain cached, the code always uses them (whether we need the cached rename or not doesn't matter since we already have it and it is cheap to use), so a summary would probably be the only thing that would make sense. The easiest summary of how often we rely upon cached renames, is checking if we have enough to avoid calling diffcore_rename_extended() entirely. That's precisely what the code above does that you are responding to. What more information could we get out? I guess we could get ever so slightly more information by tracking how many times we decide that the cache from a previous merge can be re-used (by tracking the number of times that cached_valid_side is set to 1 or 2 instead of 0). Since we sometimes have some cached renames but not enough to skip rename detection (because source paths that were irrelevant in previous commits are marked relevant for the current commit), this would be an independent number from the region_enter-diffcore_rename count used above. > That would present a mechanism > for the test cases to verify that the rename cache is behaving > as expected How so? I did check something like that above with verifying I was able to reduce the number of calls to diffcore_rename_extended() while still getting the expected result (which can only be done if renames are known). The only additional thing I can think of we could check would be a testcase where renames are cached and can be re-used but it's not enough to avoid calling diffcore_rename_extended(). Did you have something else in mind? > but also provides a way to diagnose any issues that > might arise in the future by asking a user to reproduce a > problematic rebase/merge with a GIT_TRACE2* target. Such a > change would fit as a follow-up, and does not need to insert > into an already heavy patch. I'm not sure what information could be recorded that would help diagnose any such issues. "9 out of 10 commits in your rebase reused cached renames" just doesn't seem granular enough to help. Is there something else you were thinking of recording? > I have now read all of the patches in this series to the level > I can. It's all very deep stuff, so the more we can rely on the > tests to show correctness, the better. > > I appreciate the extra tests that you added, which increases my > confidence in the series. > > Thanks, > -Stolee
On 5/19/21 8:36 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 7:23 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:>> As I was reading, I was also thinking that it would be good to >> have some kind of tracing, if only a summary of how often we >> relied upon the cached renames. > > That's an interesting thought. If there are renames that remain > cached, the code always uses them (whether we need the cached rename > or not doesn't matter since we already have it and it is cheap to > use), so a summary would probably be the only thing that would make > sense. > > The easiest summary of how often we rely upon cached renames, is > checking if we have enough to avoid calling diffcore_rename_extended() > entirely. That's precisely what the code above does that you are > responding to. > > What more information could we get out? I guess we could get ever so > slightly more information by tracking how many times we decide that > the cache from a previous merge can be re-used (by tracking the number > of times that cached_valid_side is set to 1 or 2 instead of 0). Since > we sometimes have some cached renames but not enough to skip rename > detection (because source paths that were irrelevant in previous > commits are marked relevant for the current commit), this would be an > independent number from the region_enter-diffcore_rename count used > above. > >> That would present a mechanism >> for the test cases to verify that the rename cache is behaving >> as expected > > How so? I did check something like that above with verifying I was > able to reduce the number of calls to diffcore_rename_extended() while > still getting the expected result (which can only be done if renames > are known). The only additional thing I can think of we could check > would be a testcase where renames are cached and can be re-used but > it's not enough to avoid calling diffcore_rename_extended(). Did you > have something else in mind? > >> but also provides a way to diagnose any issues that >> might arise in the future by asking a user to reproduce a >> problematic rebase/merge with a GIT_TRACE2* target. Such a >> change would fit as a follow-up, and does not need to insert >> into an already heavy patch. > > I'm not sure what information could be recorded that would help > diagnose any such issues. "9 out of 10 commits in your rebase reused > cached renames" just doesn't seem granular enough to help. Is there > something else you were thinking of recording? My initial thought was to include basic summary statistics, such as "number of cached renames used" and "number of new renames" and "number of invalidated cached renames" or something, summarized per commit in the list. The information might not be a clear way to find a root cause to a strange rebase, but it would help someone looking for the root cause to know whether this rename cache is involved or not. As for the use in the test cases, we might be able to see the list of trace2 results and extract the number of each type of statistic, matching them to our expectations. That might make the tests too fragile to future changes, though. I'm commenting also on your v3 that we don't need to pursue the trace2 idea right now, and can do it if we find it necessary to diagnose any issues with the feature. Thanks, -Stolee
diff --git a/diffcore-rename.c b/diffcore-rename.c index 963ca582216b..3375e24659ea 100644 --- a/diffcore-rename.c +++ b/diffcore-rename.c @@ -568,7 +568,8 @@ static void update_dir_rename_counts(struct dir_rename_info *info, static void initialize_dir_rename_info(struct dir_rename_info *info, struct strintmap *relevant_sources, struct strintmap *dirs_removed, - struct strmap *dir_rename_count) + struct strmap *dir_rename_count, + struct strmap *cached_pairs) { struct hashmap_iter iter; struct strmap_entry *entry; @@ -633,6 +634,17 @@ static void initialize_dir_rename_info(struct dir_rename_info *info, rename_dst[i].p->two->path); } + /* Add cached_pairs to counts */ + strmap_for_each_entry(cached_pairs, &iter, entry) { + const char *old_name = entry->key; + const char *new_name = entry->value; + if (!new_name) + /* known delete; ignore it */ + continue; + + update_dir_rename_counts(info, dirs_removed, old_name, new_name); + } + /* * Now we collapse * dir_rename_count: old_directory -> {new_directory -> count} @@ -1247,7 +1259,8 @@ static void handle_early_known_dir_renames(struct dir_rename_info *info, void diffcore_rename_extended(struct diff_options *options, struct strintmap *relevant_sources, struct strintmap *dirs_removed, - struct strmap *dir_rename_count) + struct strmap *dir_rename_count, + struct strmap *cached_pairs) { int detect_rename = options->detect_rename; int minimum_score = options->rename_score; @@ -1363,7 +1376,8 @@ void diffcore_rename_extended(struct diff_options *options, /* Preparation for basename-driven matching. */ trace2_region_enter("diff", "dir rename setup", options->repo); initialize_dir_rename_info(&info, relevant_sources, - dirs_removed, dir_rename_count); + dirs_removed, dir_rename_count, + cached_pairs); trace2_region_leave("diff", "dir rename setup", options->repo); /* Utilize file basenames to quickly find renames. */ @@ -1560,5 +1574,5 @@ void diffcore_rename_extended(struct diff_options *options, void diffcore_rename(struct diff_options *options) { - diffcore_rename_extended(options, NULL, NULL, NULL); + diffcore_rename_extended(options, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL); } diff --git a/diffcore.h b/diffcore.h index f5c6de4841ed..533b30e21e7f 100644 --- a/diffcore.h +++ b/diffcore.h @@ -181,7 +181,8 @@ void diffcore_rename(struct diff_options *); void diffcore_rename_extended(struct diff_options *options, struct strintmap *relevant_sources, struct strintmap *dirs_removed, - struct strmap *dir_rename_count); + struct strmap *dir_rename_count, + struct strmap *cached_pairs); void diffcore_merge_broken(void); void diffcore_pickaxe(struct diff_options *); void diffcore_order(const char *orderfile); diff --git a/merge-ort.c b/merge-ort.c index 2fc98b803d1c..17dc3deb3c73 100644 --- a/merge-ort.c +++ b/merge-ort.c @@ -753,15 +753,48 @@ static void add_pair(struct merge_options *opt, struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames; int names_idx = is_add ? side : 0; - if (!is_add) { + if (is_add) { + if (strset_contains(&renames->cached_target_names[side], + pathname)) + return; + } else { unsigned content_relevant = (match_mask == 0); unsigned location_relevant = (dir_rename_mask == 0x07); + /* + * If pathname is found in cached_irrelevant[side] due to + * previous pick but for this commit content is relevant, + * then we need to remove it from cached_irrelevant. + */ + if (content_relevant) + /* strset_remove is no-op if strset doesn't have key */ + strset_remove(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side], + pathname); + + /* + * We do not need to re-detect renames for paths that we already + * know the pairing, i.e. for cached_pairs (or + * cached_irrelevant). However, handle_deferred_entries() needs + * to loop over the union of keys from relevant_sources[side] and + * cached_pairs[side], so for simplicity we set relevant_sources + * for all the cached_pairs too and then strip them back out in + * prune_cached_from_relevant() at the beginning of + * detect_regular_renames(). + */ if (content_relevant || location_relevant) { /* content_relevant trumps location_relevant */ strintmap_set(&renames->relevant_sources[side], pathname, content_relevant ? RELEVANT_CONTENT : RELEVANT_LOCATION); } + + /* + * Avoid creating pair if we've already cached rename results. + * Note that we do this after setting relevant_sources[side] + * as noted in the comment above. + */ + if (strmap_contains(&renames->cached_pairs[side], pathname) || + strset_contains(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side], pathname)) + return; } one = alloc_filespec(pathname); @@ -2349,7 +2382,9 @@ static inline int possible_side_renames(struct rename_info *renames, static inline int possible_renames(struct rename_info *renames) { return possible_side_renames(renames, 1) || - possible_side_renames(renames, 2); + possible_side_renames(renames, 2) || + !strmap_empty(&renames->cached_pairs[1]) || + !strmap_empty(&renames->cached_pairs[2]); } static void resolve_diffpair_statuses(struct diff_queue_struct *q) @@ -2373,7 +2408,6 @@ static void resolve_diffpair_statuses(struct diff_queue_struct *q) } } -MAYBE_UNUSED static void prune_cached_from_relevant(struct rename_info *renames, unsigned side) { @@ -2393,7 +2427,6 @@ static void prune_cached_from_relevant(struct rename_info *renames, } } -MAYBE_UNUSED static void use_cached_pairs(struct merge_options *opt, struct strmap *cached_pairs, struct diff_queue_struct *pairs) @@ -2494,6 +2527,7 @@ static void detect_regular_renames(struct merge_options *opt, struct diff_options diff_opts; struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames; + prune_cached_from_relevant(renames, side_index); if (!possible_side_renames(renames, side_index)) { /* * No rename detection needed for this side, but we still need @@ -2522,7 +2556,8 @@ static void detect_regular_renames(struct merge_options *opt, diffcore_rename_extended(&diff_opts, &renames->relevant_sources[side_index], &renames->dirs_removed[side_index], - &renames->dir_rename_count[side_index]); + &renames->dir_rename_count[side_index], + &renames->cached_pairs[side_index]); trace2_region_leave("diff", "diffcore_rename", opt->repo); resolve_diffpair_statuses(&diff_queued_diff); @@ -2629,6 +2664,8 @@ static int detect_and_process_renames(struct merge_options *opt, trace2_region_enter("merge", "regular renames", opt->repo); detect_regular_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE1); detect_regular_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE2); + use_cached_pairs(opt, &renames->cached_pairs[1], &renames->pairs[1]); + use_cached_pairs(opt, &renames->cached_pairs[2], &renames->pairs[2]); trace2_region_leave("merge", "regular renames", opt->repo); trace2_region_enter("merge", "directory renames", opt->repo); diff --git a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh index f47d8924ee73..035edc40b1eb 100755 --- a/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh +++ b/t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh @@ -101,10 +101,10 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames does not preclude finding new ones' ' # dramatic change in size of the file, but remembering the rename and # reusing it is reasonable too. # -# Rename detection (diffcore_rename_extended()) will run twice here; it is -# not needed on the topic side of history for either of the two commits -# being merged, but it is needed on the upstream side of history for each -# commit being picked. +# 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 && ( @@ -140,11 +140,11 @@ test_expect_success 'cherry-pick both a commit and its immediate revert' ' GIT_TRACE2_PERF="$(pwd)/trace.output" && export GIT_TRACE2_PERF && - test_might_fail test-tool fast-rebase --onto HEAD upstream~1 topic && + 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 = 2 calls + test_line_count = 1 calls ) ' @@ -304,9 +304,11 @@ test_expect_success 'rename same file identically, then add file to old dir' ' # 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, also test that we do rename detection three times. We have to -# detect renames on the upstream side of history once for each merge, plus -# Topic_2 has renames. +# 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 && @@ -357,7 +359,7 @@ test_expect_success 'cached dir rename does not prevent noticing later conflict' grep CONFLICT..rename/rename output && grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && - test_line_count = 3 calls + test_line_count = 2 calls ) ' @@ -412,10 +414,17 @@ test_setup_upstream_rename () { # 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 expect rename detection to occur three times. Although it is -# typically needed two times per commit, there are no deleted files on the -# topic side of history, so we only need to detect renames on the upstream -# side for each of the 3 commits we need to pick. +# 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 && @@ -450,7 +459,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then add new file to old dir' ' #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && - test_line_count = 3 calls && + test_line_count = 2 calls && git ls-files >tracked && test_line_count = 5 tracked && @@ -516,7 +525,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dir rename unneeded, then rename existing file into old dir #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && - test_line_count = 4 calls && + test_line_count = 3 calls && test_path_is_missing somefile && test_path_is_missing olddir/newfile && @@ -648,9 +657,8 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 1' ' # for the wrong side of history. # # -# This testcase should only need three calls to diffcore_rename_extended(), -# because there are no renames on the topic side of history for picking -# Topic_2. +# 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 && @@ -677,7 +685,7 @@ test_expect_success 'caching renames only on upstream side, part 2' ' #git cherry-pick upstream..topic && grep region_enter.*diffcore_rename trace.output >calls && - test_line_count = 3 calls && + test_line_count = 2 calls && git ls-files >tracked && test_line_count = 4 tracked &&