@@ -322,6 +322,17 @@ merge_file () {
checkout_staged_file 2 "$MERGED" "$LOCAL"
checkout_staged_file 3 "$MERGED" "$REMOTE"
+ # TODO Shouldn't merge-file have a --base option?
+ git merge-file --diff3 -q -p "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" |
+ sed -e '/^<<<<<<< /,/^||||||| /d' -e '/^=======$/,/^>>>>>>> /d' \
+ >"${BASE}_resolved"
+ git merge-file --ours -q -p "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" >"${LOCAL}_resolved"
+ git merge-file --theirs -q -p "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" >"${REMOTE}_resolved"
+
+ mv -f "${BASE}_resolved" "$BASE"
+ mv -f "${LOCAL}_resolved" "$LOCAL"
+ mv -f "${REMOTE}_resolved" "$REMOTE"
+
if test -z "$local_mode" || test -z "$remote_mode"
then
echo "Deleted merge conflict for '$MERGED':"
@@ -828,4 +828,21 @@ test_expect_success 'mergetool -Oorder-file is honored' '
test_cmp expect actual
'
+test_expect_success 'skip unnecessary chunks' '
+ test_when_finished "git reset --hard" &&
+ git checkout -b test${test_count}_b master &&
+ echo -e "base\n\na" >file1 &&
+ git commit -a -m "base" &&
+ echo -e "base\n\nc" >file1 &&
+ git commit -a -m "remote update" &&
+ git checkout -b test${test_count}_a HEAD~ &&
+ echo -e "local\n\nb" >file1 &&
+ git commit -a -m "local update" &&
+ test_must_fail git merge test${test_count}_b &&
+ yes "" | git mergetool file1 &&
+ echo -e "local\n\nc" >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect file1 &&
+ git commit -m "test resolved with mergetool"
+'
+
test_done
It doesn't make sense to display easily-solvable conflicts in the different views of all mergetools. Only the chunks that warrant conflict markers should be displayed. TODO: There should be a better way to get the BASE version (maybe add --base to git mergetool). Or maybe a way to generate the three files in one go. See Seth House's blog post [1] for the idea and the rationale. [1] https://www.eseth.org/2020/mergetools.html Cc: Seth House <seth@eseth.com> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> --- git-mergetool.sh | 11 +++++++++++ t/t7610-mergetool.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)