Emit a High dispute when both branches rename the same function differently - #5
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR made by x-preview-f from opencode on behalf of Kriday.
Oot's 3-way diff swallowed rename/rename disputes. When ours renamed
ftogand theirs renamedftok, both sides deletingfhit the convergent check on empty def lists, which passes vacuously, so the merge looked clean and the result silently held both names. The engine now detects that case and reports one High dispute per affected function.Summary:
fdifferently (f->gin target,f->kin incoming)", located at theirs' new row with ours as fallbackkis not double-reportedCalls I made: