Re: svn commit: r35686 - branches/issue-3334-dirs/subversion/tests/cmdline

[Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Stephen Butler <sb...@elego.de> wrote:
> Author: sbutler
> Date: Wed Feb  4 12:32:52 2009
> New Revision: 35686
>
> Log:
> A new tree conflict test for issue 3334.  Based on the existing
> test tree_conflict_uc2_schedule_re_add(), but for use case 1
> (local tree delete, incoming leaf edit on update).
>
> Currently XFAIL because our update editor still skips over tree
> conflict victims.
>
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py
>  (tree_conflict_uc1_update_deleted_tree): New test.
>  (test_list) Add new test with XFail.
>
> Modified:
>   branches/issue-3334-dirs/subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py
>
> Modified: branches/issue-3334-dirs/subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py
> URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/issue-3334-dirs/subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py?pathrev=35686&r1=35685&r2=35686
> ==============================================================================
> --- branches/issue-3334-dirs/subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py   Wed Feb  4 12:26:33 2009        (r35685)
> +++ branches/issue-3334-dirs/subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py   Wed Feb  4 12:32:52 2009        (r35686)
> @@ -4309,6 +4309,131 @@ def update_moves_and_modifies_an_edited_
>                                         True, other_E_path,
>                                         '--accept', 'postpone')
>
> +# Issue #3334: a modify-on-deleted tree conflict should leave the node
> +# updated to the target revision but still scheduled for deletion.
> +def tree_conflict_uc1_update_deleted_tree(sbox):
> +  "tree conflicts on update UC1, update deleted tree"
> +  sbox.build()
> +  wc_dir = sbox.wc_dir
> +
> +  from svntest.actions import run_and_verify_svn, run_and_verify_resolve
> +  from svntest.actions import run_and_verify_update, run_and_verify_commit
> +  from svntest.verify import AnyOutput
> +
> +  """A directory tree 'D1' should end up exactly the same in these two
> +  scenarios:
> +
> +  New scenario:
> +  [[[
> +    svn checkout -r1             # in which D1 has its original state
> +    svn delete D1
> +    svn update -r2               # update revs & bases to r2
> +    svn resolve --accept=mine    # keep the local, deleted version
> +  ]]]
> +
> +  Existing scenario:
> +  [[[
> +    svn checkout -r2             # in which D1 is already modified
> +    svn delete D1
> +  ]]]
> +  """
> +
> +  A = os.path.join(wc_dir, 'A')
> +  A_url = sbox.repo_url + '/A'
> +
> +  def modify_dir(dir):
> +    """Make some set of local modifications to an existing tree:
> +    A prop change, add a child, delete a child, change a child."""
> +    run_and_verify_svn(None, AnyOutput, [],
> +                       'propset', 'p', 'v', dir)
> +    path = os.path.join(dir, 'new_file')
> +    svntest.main.file_write(path, "This is the file 'new_file'.\n")
> +    svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, None, [], 'add', path)
> +
> +    path = os.path.join(dir, 'B', 'lambda')
> +    svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, None, [], 'delete', path)
> +
> +    path = os.path.join(dir, 'B', 'E', 'alpha')
> +    svntest.main.file_append(path, "An extra line.\n")
> +
> +  # Prep for both scenarios
> +  modify_dir(A)
> +  run_and_verify_svn(None, AnyOutput, [], 'ci', A, '-m', 'modify_dir')
> +  run_and_verify_svn(None, AnyOutput, [], 'up', wc_dir)
> +
> +  # Existing scenario
> +  wc2 = sbox.add_wc_path('wc2')
> +  A2 = os.path.join(wc2, 'A')
> +  svntest.actions.duplicate_dir(sbox.wc_dir, wc2)
> +  run_and_verify_svn(None, AnyOutput, [], 'delete', A2)
> +
> +  # New scenario (starts at the revision before the committed mods)
> +  run_and_verify_svn(None, AnyOutput, [], 'up', A, '-r1')
> +  run_and_verify_svn(None, AnyOutput, [], 'delete', A)
> +
> +  expected_output = None
> +  expected_disk = None
> +  expected_status = None
> +  run_and_verify_update(A, expected_output, expected_disk, expected_status)
> +  run_and_verify_resolve([A], '--recursive', '--accept=mine-full', A)
> +
> +  resolved_status = svntest.wc.State('', {
> +      ''            : Item(status='  ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A'           : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/B'         : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/B/E'       : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/B/E/alpha' : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/B/E/beta'  : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/B/F'       : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/mu'        : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/C'         : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D'         : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/gamma'   : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/G'       : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/G/pi'    : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/G/rho'   : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/G/tau'   : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/H'       : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/H/chi'   : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/H/omega' : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/D/H/psi'   : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'A/new_file'  : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=2),
> +      'iota'        : Item(status='  ', wc_rev=2),
> +      })
> +
> +  # The status of the new and old scenarios should be identical.
> +  expected_status = resolved_status.copy()
> +  expected_status.wc_dir = wc2
> +  svntest.actions.run_and_verify_status(wc2, expected_status)
> +
> +  expected_status = resolved_status.copy()
> +  expected_status.wc_dir = wc_dir
> +  ### HACK! Just to show the skipping behavior that we need to elminate.
> +  ### Delete this!
> +  expected_status.tweak(wc_rev=1)
> +  expected_status.add({
> +      'A/B/lambda'  : Item(status='D ', wc_rev=1),
> +      })
> +  expected_status.remove('A/new_file')
> +  expected_status.tweak('', 'iota', wc_rev=2)
> +  ### end hack
> +  svntest.actions.run_and_verify_status(wc_dir, expected_status)
> +
> +  # Just for kicks, try to commit.
> +  ### The commit fails because A is out of date.
> +  expected_output = svntest.wc.State(wc_dir, {
> +      'A'           : Item(verb='Adding'),
> +      'A/B/E/alpha' : Item(verb='Sending'),
> +      'A/B/lambda'  : Item(verb='Deleting'),
> +      'A/new_file'  : Item(verb='Adding'),
> +      })

Hi Steve,

I think we expect a commit notification of A's *deletion* yes?  Fixed
this in r35765.  If I'm going insane and was wrong please let me know
(a real possibility now that I've been exposed to tree conflicts...and
to think I thought merge tracking made my head hurt).

Paul

> +  expected_status = resolved_status.copy()
> +  expected_status.tweak(status='  ', wc_rev=3)
> +  expected_status.tweak('', 'iota', wc_rev=2)
> +  run_and_verify_commit(wc_dir, expected_output, expected_status,
> +                        None, wc_dir, '-m', 'commit resolved tree')
> +
> +
>  # Issue #3334: a delete-onto-modified tree conflict should leave the node
>  # scheduled for re-addition.
>  def tree_conflict_uc2_schedule_re_add(sbox):
> @@ -4489,6 +4614,7 @@ test_list = [ None,
>               XFail(tree_conflicts_on_update_2_3),
>               tree_conflicts_on_update_3,
>               update_moves_and_modifies_an_edited_file,
> +              XFail(tree_conflict_uc1_update_deleted_tree),
>               tree_conflict_uc2_schedule_re_add,
>              ]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=495&dsMessageId=1103908
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1129970