You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> on 2013/01/14 22:19:55 UTC
1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Re the roadmap item "Test Review - Determine which XFail and WIP tests
should remain so, and which need to be fixed before release." We are
almost done, only 5 Xfailing tests remain that are either associated
with a 1.8.0 issue or no issue. We currently have no WIP issues.
Details below.
Ignoring tests with associated issues with the 1.8-consider milestone
we have only one XFailing test associated with an issue with the 1.8.0
milestone (and it appears Julian is actively working on this, at least
it's assigned to him and marked as started):
LISTING: merge_tests.py
Test # Mode Test Description
Issue#(Target Mileston/Assigned To)
------ ----- ----------------
131 XFAIL merge binary file with keywords
#4221(1.8.0/julianfoad)
Julian - What's the status on this? You still working on it? Is it
really a blocker for 1.8.0?
~~~~~
There are still three XFailing tests with no associated issue:
LISTING: update_tests.py
Test # Mode Test Description
------ ----- ----------------
60 XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
61 XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
62 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming file
These three have previously been discussed (and don't appear to be
1.8.0 blockers):
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:00:52PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>>>> These six XFailing upate tests are all part of this effort correct?
>>>>
>>>> 61 XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
>>>> 62 XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
>>>> 63 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming file
>>>> 64 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming dir
>>>
>>> I believe the above date back to 1.6. They verify that tree
>>> conflict detection works correctly.
>>>
>>> I might have changed them since 1.7 was branched to account
>>> for some changes I made. I'll look into that next week.
>
> Ping. You had any chance to take a look at these?
Stefan - Anything to add re these tests?
~~~~~
Lastly, we have one XFailing C-test that Bert added last week:
C:\SVN\src-trunk-2>Debug\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.exe 45
..\..\..\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.c:5391: (apr_err=200006)
..\..\..\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.c:232: (apr_err=200006)
svn_tests: E200006: expected {1, C2/f, normal, copyfrom ^/A2/B/C/f@2,
moved-here}; found {1, C2/f, normal, copyfrom ^/A/B/C/f@1, moved-here}
..\..\..\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.c:232: (apr_err=200006)
svn_tests: E200006: expected {1, C2, normal, copyfrom ^/A2/B/C@2,
moved-here}; found {1, C2, normal, copyfrom ^/A/B/C@1, moved-here}
XFAIL: op-depth-test.exe 45: nested_move_commit
Bert - Is this a blocker for 1.8.0?
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:12 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 11:43 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> I've made several commits to sort these tests out (r1433468 et al).
>
> Thanks, Stefan. Unless I'm overlooking something, we now have no XFAIL
> tests which lack an issue designation.
Quite right, all XFail tests now have an issue. Even better[1], no
XFailing tests have an associated issue with the 1.8.0 target
milestone. I'm marking the 'Test review -- Determine which XFail and
WIP tests should remain so, and which need to be fixed before release'
task in the roadmap as complete (for now).
Thanks to all who helped straighten this out.
[1] So from this rather naive perspective we can branch 1.8 today ;-)
We obviously have work for 1.8 underway (e.g.
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-01/0333.shtml) that doesn't have
tests yet.
--
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 01/15/2013 11:43 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I've made several commits to sort these tests out (r1433468 et al).
Thanks, Stefan. Unless I'm overlooking something, we now have no XFAIL
tests which lack an issue designation.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:55:43PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 01/14/2013 04:19 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> > There are still three XFailing tests with no associated issue:
> >
> > LISTING: update_tests.py
> > Test # Mode Test Description
> > ------ ----- ----------------
> > 60 XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
> > 61 XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
> > 62 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming file
>
> Stefan, can you please allocate the presumably small block of time to file
> issue(s) for these tests and then to associate the tests with said issues?
> This is association is truly helpful when trying to identify showstopper
> test failures (and also when trying to avoid adding duplicate tests). Thanks!
I've made several commits to sort these tests out (r1433468 et al).
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 01/14/2013 04:19 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> There are still three XFailing tests with no associated issue:
>>
>> LISTING: update_tests.py
>> Test # Mode Test Description
>> ------ ----- ----------------
>> 60 XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
>> 61 XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
>> 62 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming file
>
> Stefan, can you please allocate the presumably small block of time to file
> issue(s) for these tests and then to associate the tests with said issues?
> This is association is truly helpful when trying to identify showstopper
> test failures (and also when trying to avoid adding duplicate tests). Thanks!
Although stsp said he'd look into those three update-move tests, and may have been involved with creating them and/or changing them, they now lie under the province of the update-move work that Philip is driving, so if there's an issue filed for that, that's what they should be attached to, I'm pretty sure.
- Julian
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 01/14/2013 04:19 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> There are still three XFailing tests with no associated issue:
>
> LISTING: update_tests.py
> Test # Mode Test Description
> ------ ----- ----------------
> 60 XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
> 61 XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
> 62 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming file
Stefan, can you please allocate the presumably small block of time to file
issue(s) for these tests and then to associate the tests with said issues?
This is association is truly helpful when trying to identify showstopper
test failures (and also when trying to avoid adding duplicate tests). Thanks!
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
RE: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Burba [mailto:ptburba@gmail.com]
> Sent: maandag 14 januari 2013 22:20
> To: Subversion Development
> Cc: Stefan Sperling; Julian Foad; Bert Huijben
> Subject: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
>
> Re the roadmap item "Test Review - Determine which XFail and WIP tests
> should remain so, and which need to be fixed before release." We are
> almost done, only 5 Xfailing tests remain that are either associated
> with a 1.8.0 issue or no issue. We currently have no WIP issues.
> Details below.
>
>
> Ignoring tests with associated issues with the 1.8-consider milestone
> we have only one XFailing test associated with an issue with the 1.8.0
> milestone (and it appears Julian is actively working on this, at least
> it's assigned to him and marked as started):
>
> LISTING: merge_tests.py
> Test # Mode Test Description
> Issue#(Target Mileston/Assigned To)
> ------ ----- ----------------
> 131 XFAIL merge binary file with keywords
> #4221(1.8.0/julianfoad)
>
> Julian - What's the status on this? You still working on it? Is it
> really a blocker for 1.8.0?
>
> ~~~~~
>
> There are still three XFailing tests with no associated issue:
>
> LISTING: update_tests.py
> Test # Mode Test Description
> ------ ----- ----------------
> 60 XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
> 61 XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
> 62 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming file
>
> These three have previously been discussed (and don't appear to be
> 1.8.0 blockers):
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:00:52PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> >>>> These six XFailing upate tests are all part of this effort correct?
> >>>>
> >>>> 61 XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
> >>>> 62 XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
> >>>> 63 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming file
> >>>> 64 XFAIL update locally moved dir with incoming dir
> >>>
> >>> I believe the above date back to 1.6. They verify that tree
> >>> conflict detection works correctly.
> >>>
> >>> I might have changed them since 1.7 was branched to account
> >>> for some changes I made. I'll look into that next week.
> >
> > Ping. You had any chance to take a look at these?
>
> Stefan - Anything to add re these tests?
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Lastly, we have one XFailing C-test that Bert added last week:
>
> C:\SVN\src-trunk-2>Debug\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.exe
> 45
> ..\..\..\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.c:5391: (apr_err=200006)
> ..\..\..\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.c:232: (apr_err=200006)
> svn_tests: E200006: expected {1, C2/f, normal, copyfrom ^/A2/B/C/f@2,
> moved-here}; found {1, C2/f, normal, copyfrom ^/A/B/C/f@1, moved-here}
> ..\..\..\subversion\tests\libsvn_wc\op-depth-test.c:232: (apr_err=200006)
> svn_tests: E200006: expected {1, C2, normal, copyfrom ^/A2/B/C@2,
> moved-here}; found {1, C2, normal, copyfrom ^/A/B/C@1, moved-here}
> XFAIL: op-depth-test.exe 45: nested_move_commit
>
> Bert - Is this a blocker for 1.8.0?
I think it is. (It is part of the move work)
The nested move makes the database invalid after committing.
The commit operation should update the move origin (and revision, etc.)
Bert
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:34:00PM +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
(Re. issue #4221 "Trivial merge of a binary file with svn:keywords raises a conflict".)
>> Stefan, you asked the reporter to file it against 1.8.0; what do you think?
>
> I mainly asked for this so that the issue would get some attention,
> and did intend to look into it eventually.
> The issue should probably have been marked 1.8-consider instead, since it
> is not a regression. But I'm glad you've picked it up and I hope that
> good results will come out of your work on this issue!
OK, so I've changed the milestone to 1.8-consider but am still working on it.
- Julian
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:34:00PM +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan, you asked the reporter to file it against 1.8.0; what do you think?
I mainly asked for this so that the issue would get some attention,
and did intend to look into it eventually.
The issue should probably have been marked 1.8-consider instead, since it
is not a regression. But I'm glad you've picked it up and I hope that
good results will come out of your work on this issue!
Re: 1.8 Release Status : Test Review Task Update
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Paul Burba wrote:
[...]
> we have only one XFailing test associated with an issue with the 1.8.0
> milestone (and it appears Julian is actively working on this, at least
> it's assigned to him and marked as started):
>
> LISTING: merge_tests.py
> Test # Mode Test Description
> Issue#(Target Mileston/Assigned To)
> ------ ----- ----------------
> 131 XFAIL merge binary file with keywords
> #4221(1.8.0/julianfoad)
>
> Julian - What's the status on this? You still working on it? Is it
> really a blocker for 1.8.0?
"Trivial merge of a binary file with svn:keywords raises a conflict"
<http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4221>
I am still working on it and think I will be fixing it soon. If I succeed, it won't be important to decide on the milestone. I'm not sure it really qualifies as a release blocker. Stefan, you asked the reporter to file it against 1.8.0; what do you think?
- Julian