You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> on 2010/11/08 10:13:03 UTC
Issue triage: issues 3429 and 3474
Hi,
I recently verified that the following two issues are fixed on trunk:
- #3429: "svn mv A B; svn mv B A" generates replace without history
- #3474: making a new subdir, moving files into it and then renaming
the subdir, breaks history of the moved files
Should I mark these as fixed in the issue tracker, or will someone
else do that, after double-checking my findings?
Or, maybe the best approach: I could add a regression test for these
issues, so we can all be sure that they are fixed (and remain fixed),
after which they can be marked as fixed.
I have not written a test for Subversion before, but I guess I should
be able to manage after reading the relevant section from the
community guide, and the subversion/tests/README and
subversion/tests/cmdline/README it references. Any other pointers or
tips are welcome of course :-).
Cheers,
--
Johan
Re: Issue triage: issues 3429 and 3474
Posted by Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:24 +0100:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Martin
>> <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> > Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Or, maybe the best approach: I could add a regression test for these
>> >> issues, so we can all be sure that they are fixed (and remain fixed),
>> >> after which they can be marked as fixed.
>> >
>> > Yes, please. Are there any existing XFAIL tests that apply? They
>> > sometimes don't XPASS automatically when the bug is fixed because the
>> > test expectation is wrong.
>>
>> Doh, it seems that issue #3474 already has a test, which PASSes (added
>> by Bert, which he mentioned in a comment in the issue):
>>
>> PASS: copy_tests.py 81: copy of new dir with copied file keeps history
>>
>> This is exactly what issue #3474 is about. Bert added the test as
>> XFAIL in r938071, and it was marked PASS by you, Philip, in r955334.
>>
>> So, I guess this wraps up that issue: can someone mark it as resolved?
>>
>
> Could you mark it as resolved? Or don't you have the necessary
> permissions on tigris?
Ok, done (didn't know I could do that myself :-)).
>> There was a slight confusion when I read the test code, because a
>> comment still talks about the tests as "Currently this fails because
>> ...". The following patch removes that obsolete comment:
>>
>> [[[
>> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py
>> ===================================================================
>> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (revision 1035851)
>> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (working copy)
>> @@ -4358,8 +4358,6 @@ def copy_added_dir_with_copy(sbox):
>> 'NewDir2/mu' : Item(status='A ', copied='+', wc_rev='-'),
>> })
>>
>> - # Currently this fails because NewDir2/mu loses its history in the copy
>> - # from NewDir to NewDir2
>> svntest.actions.run_and_verify_status(wc_dir, expected_status)
>>
>>
>
> +1, but could you add a link to the issue (in a comment) while you're
> there?
Committed in r1036306.
Cheers,
--
Johan
Re: Issue triage: issues 3429 and 3474
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:24 +0100:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Martin
> <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Or, maybe the best approach: I could add a regression test for these
> >> issues, so we can all be sure that they are fixed (and remain fixed),
> >> after which they can be marked as fixed.
> >
> > Yes, please. Are there any existing XFAIL tests that apply? They
> > sometimes don't XPASS automatically when the bug is fixed because the
> > test expectation is wrong.
>
> Doh, it seems that issue #3474 already has a test, which PASSes (added
> by Bert, which he mentioned in a comment in the issue):
>
> PASS: copy_tests.py 81: copy of new dir with copied file keeps history
>
> This is exactly what issue #3474 is about. Bert added the test as
> XFAIL in r938071, and it was marked PASS by you, Philip, in r955334.
>
> So, I guess this wraps up that issue: can someone mark it as resolved?
>
Could you mark it as resolved? Or don't you have the necessary
permissions on tigris?
> There was a slight confusion when I read the test code, because a
> comment still talks about the tests as "Currently this fails because
> ...". The following patch removes that obsolete comment:
>
> [[[
> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (revision 1035851)
> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (working copy)
> @@ -4358,8 +4358,6 @@ def copy_added_dir_with_copy(sbox):
> 'NewDir2/mu' : Item(status='A ', copied='+', wc_rev='-'),
> })
>
> - # Currently this fails because NewDir2/mu loses its history in the copy
> - # from NewDir to NewDir2
> svntest.actions.run_and_verify_status(wc_dir, expected_status)
>
>
+1, but could you add a link to the issue (in a comment) while you're
there?
>
> ]]]
>
>
> For issue #3429, I'll try to write a regression test myself, and post
> a patch for it in a new thread.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Johan
Re: Issue triage: issues 3429 and 3474
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:24 +0100:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Martin
> <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Or, maybe the best approach: I could add a regression test for these
> >> issues, so we can all be sure that they are fixed (and remain fixed),
> >> after which they can be marked as fixed.
> >
> > Yes, please. Are there any existing XFAIL tests that apply? They
> > sometimes don't XPASS automatically when the bug is fixed because the
> > test expectation is wrong.
>
> Doh, it seems that issue #3474 already has a test, which PASSes (added
> by Bert, which he mentioned in a comment in the issue):
>
> PASS: copy_tests.py 81: copy of new dir with copied file keeps history
>
> This is exactly what issue #3474 is about. Bert added the test as
> XFAIL in r938071, and it was marked PASS by you, Philip, in r955334.
>
> So, I guess this wraps up that issue: can someone mark it as resolved?
>
Could you mark it as resolved? Or don't you have the necessary
permissions on tigris?
> There was a slight confusion when I read the test code, because a
> comment still talks about the tests as "Currently this fails because
> ...". The following patch removes that obsolete comment:
>
> [[[
> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (revision 1035851)
> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (working copy)
> @@ -4358,8 +4358,6 @@ def copy_added_dir_with_copy(sbox):
> 'NewDir2/mu' : Item(status='A ', copied='+', wc_rev='-'),
> })
>
> - # Currently this fails because NewDir2/mu loses its history in the copy
> - # from NewDir to NewDir2
> svntest.actions.run_and_verify_status(wc_dir, expected_status)
>
>
+1, but could you add a link to the issue (in a comment) while you're
there?
>
> ]]]
>
>
> For issue #3429, I'll try to write a regression test myself, and post
> a patch for it in a new thread.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Johan
Re: Issue triage: issues 3429 and 3474
Posted by Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Martin
<ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Or, maybe the best approach: I could add a regression test for these
>> issues, so we can all be sure that they are fixed (and remain fixed),
>> after which they can be marked as fixed.
>
> Yes, please. Are there any existing XFAIL tests that apply? They
> sometimes don't XPASS automatically when the bug is fixed because the
> test expectation is wrong.
Doh, it seems that issue #3474 already has a test, which PASSes (added
by Bert, which he mentioned in a comment in the issue):
PASS: copy_tests.py 81: copy of new dir with copied file keeps history
This is exactly what issue #3474 is about. Bert added the test as
XFAIL in r938071, and it was marked PASS by you, Philip, in r955334.
So, I guess this wraps up that issue: can someone mark it as resolved?
There was a slight confusion when I read the test code, because a
comment still talks about the tests as "Currently this fails because
...". The following patch removes that obsolete comment:
[[[
Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py
===================================================================
--- subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (revision 1035851)
+++ subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py (working copy)
@@ -4358,8 +4358,6 @@ def copy_added_dir_with_copy(sbox):
'NewDir2/mu' : Item(status='A ', copied='+', wc_rev='-'),
})
- # Currently this fails because NewDir2/mu loses its history in the copy
- # from NewDir to NewDir2
svntest.actions.run_and_verify_status(wc_dir, expected_status)
]]]
For issue #3429, I'll try to write a regression test myself, and post
a patch for it in a new thread.
Cheers,
--
Johan
Re: Issue triage: issues 3429 and 3474
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> writes:
> Or, maybe the best approach: I could add a regression test for these
> issues, so we can all be sure that they are fixed (and remain fixed),
> after which they can be marked as fixed.
Yes, please. Are there any existing XFAIL tests that apply? They
sometimes don't XPASS automatically when the bug is fixed because the
test expectation is wrong.
> I have not written a test for Subversion before, but I guess I should
> be able to manage after reading the relevant section from the
> community guide, and the subversion/tests/README and
> subversion/tests/cmdline/README it references. Any other pointers or
> tips are welcome of course :-).
It's probably easiest to look at some of the recently added tests.
Julian added some in r1031411, I added some in r1027031.
--
Philip