Static Analysis of Higher-Order Merge Conflicts

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for resolving merge conflicts in large software development projects are inefficient, as they often require manual intervention and cannot prevent higher-order conflicts that arise from unintended interactions between changes in different parts of the source code, leading to build failures and unexpected behavior.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method that detects and analyzes potential merge conflicts by generating a data structure representing dependency relationships between source code changes, allowing for the identification and resolution of conflicts without the need for compilation or test runs, using a system like High Performance Analytic Appliance (HANA) to scale to large projects.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If manual intervention is used to resolve merge conflicts, then conflicts can be resolved, but the process becomes inefficient and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemerge conflict resolution efficiencyVSAvoidtime for manual conflict resolution
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary static analysis of code changes before merge operations occur. By pre-identifying potential higher-order conflicts through dependency graph analysis, the system prepares conflict detection results in advance, enabling automated or assisted resolution rather than reactive manual intervention after conflicts arise.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary static analysis system that sits between the version control system and the codebase. This intermediary analyzes code dependencies and potential conflicts without requiring manual intervention, acting as an automated mediator that identifies and flags higher-order conflicts before they manifest as actual merge problems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If conventional merge conflict detection methods are used, then simple textual conflicts can be identified, but higher-order conflicts from unintended interactions between changes cannot be prevented

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection of higher-order merge conflictsVSAvoidcomplexity of conflict analysis system
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the codebase into discrete units of change and represents their relationships through a dependency graph. By breaking down the complex analysis task into individual change segments and their pairwise relationships, the system can systematically identify higher-order conflicts without requiring analysis of the entire codebase at once, managing complexity through structured decomposition.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent transitions from analyzing only textual overlaps in a single dimension to analyzing code changes across multiple dimensions by constructing dependency graphs that represent relationships between different code elements. This multi-dimensional analysis enables detection of higher-order conflicts that involve interactions between changes in different files or code modules, going beyond simple line-by-line conflict detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

3Reliability

If thorough testing of individual development branches is performed, then build failures can be prevented, but higher-order merge conflicts still occur due to unintended interactions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprevention of build failuresVSAvoidspeed of merge process
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary static analysis of code changes before merge operations occur. By pre-identifying potential higher-order conflicts through dependency graph analysis, the system prepares conflict detection results in advance, enabling automated or assisted resolution rather than reactive manual intervention after conflicts arise.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Productivity

If static analysis is used to detect conflicts, then conflicts can be identified without compilation or test runs, but the analysis must scale to large projects with numerous parallel branches

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespeed of conflict detectionVSAvoidscaling capability for large projects
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the codebase into discrete units of change and represents their relationships through a dependency graph. By breaking down the complex analysis task into individual change segments and their pairwise relationships, the system can systematically identify higher-order conflicts without requiring analysis of the entire codebase at once, managing complexity through structured decomposition.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS11144311B2Static analysis of higher-order merge conflicts in large software development projects
Publication Date: 2021.10.12 SAP SE
  • US11144311B2 patent drawing
  • US11144311B2 patent drawing
  • US11144311B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method, a system, and a computer program product for detection of potential merge conflicts. One or more changes to one or more source code entries in a software application are received. One or more dependency relationships of the received changes to one or more source code entries are determined and analyzed. A data structure including at least one node corresponding to the received changes is generated. Using the dependency relationships and the generated data structure, one or more conflicting changes are identified.