Fresh clone of pijul sources contains conflicts (or conflict markers)

Question
1

Today I realised that my clone of pijul/pijul contains a conflict (or just a conflict marker). I nuked the folder and cloned again:

$ pijul --version
pijul 1.0.0-beta.2
$ pijul clone https://nest.pijul.com/pijul/pijul 
Downloading changes [==================================================] 807/807                                                       
           Applying [==================================================] 807/807                                                       
 Completing changes [                                                  ] 0/0                                                         
$ cd pijul 
$ grep -r "^>>>>>>>" 
libpijul/src/tests/mod.rs:>>>>>>> 0 [SHSJ3Y53]
libpijul/src/record.rs:>>>>>>> 0 [PDTUHOMV]

How do I tell if it’s a conflict marker that’s become part of a patch or an actual conflict (that I can squash)?

EDIT: I should’ve maybe mentioned (although it could also be obvious to some) that libpijul doesn’t build in this state.

2

Are you sure that’s not the part of the code that outputs the conflict marker?

3

Pretty sure, here are the lines I see in record.rs:

            contents.push(0);
            if end > start {
>>>>>>> 0 [PDTUHOMV]
<<<<<<< 0
                (

Also checked on the nest and it’s not showing there.

4

Just did another pull - it appeared to grab two new patches (although I don’t know which).

But @pmeunier pushed a change today that I suspect fixed it in record.rs.

@pmeunier If you’re reading this, thanks! I’m still seeing another conflict in libpijul/src/tests/mod.rs:

fn record_all<T: MutTxnT, R: WorkingCopy, P: ChangeStore>(
    repo: &R,
    store: &P,
    txn: &ArcTxn<T>,
    channel: &ChannelRef<T>,
    prefix: &str,
) -> Result<Hash, anyhow::Error>
where
>>>>>>> 0 [SHSJ3Y53]
    T: MutTxnT + Send + Sync + 'static,
    R: WorkingCopy + Clone + Send + Sync + 'static,
    P: ChangeStore + Clone + Send + 'static,
<<<<<<< 0
    R::Error: Send + Sync + 'static,
{
    let (hash, _) = record_all_change(repo, store, txn, channel, prefix)?;
    Ok(hash)
}
5

Yes, I should reactivate CI. As soon as I’m done with my current big “day job” projects (hopefully in 2022), I’ll start spending time on Pijul again.

1 Like
6

These conflicts come from a patch that was made right during a change in how conflicts were detected, so I won’t count it as a bug.

7

Thanks! I’m not counting bugs :slight_smile: just started digging around the codebase again and wanted to report my findings.

I think my underlying question is: if there’s a conflict, how do I tell? The textual representation of a conflict could conceivably be just part of a file, so I’m wondering if there’s a way to get a list of all “current” conflicts (for a given tag/channel “checkout”). Grepping for ^>>>>>> seems like a poor man’s conflict detection :slight_smile:

(Apologies if I use words like “commit”, “checkout”, etc - heavy git user here and am used to those words, but I do understand and appreciate that pijul is conceptually different with different terminology.)