You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to scm-dev@maven.apache.org by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com> on 2007/05/22 20:51:36 UTC
mercurial provider patch
During further use/testing of the mercurial provider (maven-scm-provider-hg)
I discovered that the "tag" command was missing. I've just fixed this.
Please see the patch attached to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
Thank you,
Ryan Daum
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com>.
No -- "hg tag" does not return a list of files tagged because a "tag" in
Mercurial (and in some other systems) does not mean "tag these files" it
means "tag this revision" .. thus it does not return a list of files tagged
since by definition all files in the repository for this revision are now
tagged.
In any case, I just "fake it" by returning a list of all the files.
You're right about the "svn copy" -- I started from existing commands and
modified, and this is what IntelliJ did; let me see if I can work around
this by just starting from a fresh checkout and copying the correct files
over. Expect a patch on the Jira issue in a few minutes.
Thanks,
Ryan
On 5/23/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>
> You can't get the files list by parsing the tag command output only?
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged
> > files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the
> > Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this
> > case. I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform
> > an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given
> > that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.
> >
> > Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this
> > test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test
> > suite. I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works,
> > and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which
> > includes the Mercurial provider.
> >
> > Your call,
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that
> > must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with
> > the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> > > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
> > arbitrary
> > > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
> > revision
> > > of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to require
> the
> > > ability to tag specific files only.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < rdaum@informiam.com
> > <ma...@informiam.com>
> > > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > So if the latest commit is the release correction... what
> you're
> > > saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check
> > out the
> > > branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in
> > before
> > > the release.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net>
> > > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given
> the
> > > commits you
> > > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about
> > missing
> > > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I
> can't
> > > actually run
> > > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide
> me
> > > instructions on
> > > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> > >
> > > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be
> > build
> > > when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
> > central repo.
> > > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> > > http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> > > <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide
> > surefire
> > > results, as
> > > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I
> added.
> > >
> > > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Test set:
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
> > elapsed:
> > > 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > >
> > testTagCommandTest(
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> > > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(
> TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > > at
> > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > > Method)
> > > at
> > >
> > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > > at
> > >
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > :25)
> > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java
> :585)
> > > at
> > junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> > > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(
> > TestCase.java:127)
> > > at
> > > junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > > at
> > > junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java
> :124)
> > > at
> > junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> > > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java
> :118)
> > > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
> > (TestSuite.java :208)
> > > at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java
> :203)
> > > at
> > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > > Method)
> > > at
> > >
> > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > > :39)
> > > at
> > >
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> >
> > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java
> :585)
> > > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> > > (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(
> AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > > at
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> > > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> > > at
> > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > > Method)
> > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > > at
> > > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java
> :585)
> > > at
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> > > (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > > at
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > > at
> > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
> > (SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't
> > see from
> > > the first
> > > > lines how it is invalid.
> > >
> > > Index:
> > >
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > >
> > >
> > ===================================================================
> > > ---
> > >
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > > (revision 0)
> > > +++
> > >
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> >
> > > (working copy)
> > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag;
> > > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
> > under one
> > > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > > * under the License.
> > > */
> > >
> > > -import
> > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> > > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > > >
> > > > Ryan
> > > >
> > > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net>
> > > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net
> >>
> > > > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net> <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net>>>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > > >
> > > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package
> > -Ptck' on
> > > the hg
> > > > provider
> > > >
> > > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one
> in
> > > SCM-319 wasn't
> > > > correct (look at first lines)
> > > >
> > > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if
> > I don't
> > > have
> > > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next
> > version.
> > > >
> > > > Emmanuel
> > > >
> > > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial
> provider
> > > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the
> "tag"
> > > command was
> > > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>> <mailto:
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>>
> > > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>> <mailto:
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
You can't get the files list by parsing the tag command output only?
Ryan Daum a écrit :
> No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged
> files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the
> Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this
> case. I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform
> an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given
> that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.
>
> Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this
> test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test
> suite. I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works,
> and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which
> includes the Mercurial provider.
>
> Your call,
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
>
> It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that
> must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with
> the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
> arbitrary
> > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
> revision
> > of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to require the
> > ability to tag specific files only.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
> > saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check
> out the
> > branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in
> before
> > the release.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
> > commits you
> > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about
> missing
> > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
> > actually run
> > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
> > instructions on
> > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> >
> > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be
> build
> > when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
> central repo.
> > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> > http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
> >
> > >
> > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide
> surefire
> > results, as
> > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
> >
> > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Test set:
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
> elapsed:
> > 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> >
> testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
> :25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(
> TestCase.java:127)
> > at
> > junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > at
> > junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
> (TestSuite.java :208)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > :39)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> > (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> > (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
> (SurefireBooter.java:818)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't
> see from
> > the first
> > > lines how it is invalid.
> >
> > Index:
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> >
> >
> ===================================================================
> > ---
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > (revision 0)
> > +++
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
> > (working copy)
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> >
> > /*
> > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
> under one
> > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > * under the License.
> > */
> >
> > -import
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>>
> > > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net> <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > >
> > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package
> -Ptck' on
> > the hg
> > > provider
> > >
> > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
> > SCM-319 wasn't
> > > correct (look at first lines)
> > >
> > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if
> I don't
> > have
> > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next
> version.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
> > command was
> > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > >
> > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>> <mailto:
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>> <mailto:
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: Re: Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
If I remember it correctly, the constructor without the files list is to add scm errors with providers messages...
Maybe we must add more javadoc on this class or deprecate this constructor, but a result in success must have the list of tagged files.
Emmanuel
Ryan Daum a écrit :
> Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class
> TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of
> tagged files and the other which does not, leaving that list null. If
> the intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then the
> other constructor should not exist. Alternatively, if this is not the
> intention, then the Tck test should not require that this list be
> populated.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>> wrote:
>
> No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of
> tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense
> that the Tck test should require that a provider return a list like
> this in this case. I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag
> command perform an additional operation to list all the files in the
> repository given that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.
>
> Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful
> this test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the
> test suite. I have manually tested the functionality and know that
> it works, and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0
> release which includes the Mercurial provider.
>
> Your call,
> Ryan
>
>
> On 5/22/07, * Emmanuel Venisse* <emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
>
> It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that
> must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know
> with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the
> output.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
> arbitrary
> > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
> revision
> > of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to
> require the
> > ability to tag specific files only.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > So if the latest commit is the release correction... what
> you're
> > saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check
> out the
> > branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it
> in before
> > the release.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given
> the
> > commits you
> > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about
> missing
> > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
> > actually run
> > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
> > instructions on
> > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> >
> > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be
> build
> > when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
> central repo.
> > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>
> > <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
> >
> > >
> > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide
> surefire
> > results, as
> > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
> >
> > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Test set:
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
> elapsed:
> > 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> >
> testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
> :25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke
> (Method.java:585)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare (
> TestCase.java:127)
> > at
> > junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > at
> >
> junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
> (TestSuite.java :208)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > :39)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> > (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> > (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
> (SurefireBooter.java:818)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't
> see from
> > the first
> > > lines how it is invalid.
> >
> > Index:
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> >
> >
> ===================================================================
> > ---
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > (revision 0)
> > +++
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
> > (working copy)
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> >
> > /*
> > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
> under one
> > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > * under the License.
> > */
> >
> > -import
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <
> emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>>
> > > <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net> <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > >
> > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package
> -Ptck' on
> > the hg
> > > provider
> > >
> > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
> > SCM-319 wasn't
> > > correct (look at first lines)
> > >
> > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0,
> if I don't
> > have
> > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the
> next version.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial
> provider
> > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the
> "tag"
> > command was
> > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > >
> > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>>> <mailto:
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>>>>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>> <mailto:
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: Re: Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
Ryan Daum a écrit :
> I have a local version here which now passes all Tck tests by doing the
> inventory of the repository after the tag.
>
> Emmanuel, I can provide you with a patch, but can you give me advice on
> how to get Subversion to produce a diff file (from svn diff) that will
> do the right thing with creating new files? All the output I get from
> svn diff seems to do the same as the patch I provided to you yesterday.
It's probably because you do a svn copy instead of create a new file from scratch.
If you can't create a clean patch, attach it to jira with the new file attached too and I'll work around.
Emmanuel
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>> wrote:
>
> Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class
> TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of
> tagged files and the other which does not, leaving that list null.
> If the intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then
> the other constructor should not exist. Alternatively, if this is
> not the intention, then the Tck test should not require that this
> list be populated.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>> wrote:
>
> No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of
> tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes
> sense that the Tck test should require that a provider return a
> list like this in this case. I'm very skeptical of making the
> provider's tag command perform an additional operation to list
> all the files in the repository given that it already is doing
> two operations: tag and push.
>
> Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how
> meaningful this test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove
> the test from the test suite. I have manually tested the
> functionality and know that it works, and I think this feature
> is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the
> Mercurial provider.
>
> Your call,
> Ryan
>
>
> On 5/22/07, * Emmanuel Venisse* <emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
>
> It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult
> that must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you
> can know with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by
> parsing the output.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that
> many SCM
> > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to
> tag arbitrary
> > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the
> current revision
> > of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to
> require the
> > ability to tag specific files only.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > So if the latest commit is the release correction...
> what you're
> > saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I
> check out the
> > branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make
> it in before
> > the release.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update
> given the
> > commits you
> > > checked in earlier today, because it complains
> about missing
> > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so
> I can't
> > actually run
> > > through the tck profile you mention; can you
> provide me
> > instructions on
> > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> >
> > My latest commit is the release creation, so it
> will be build
> > when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
> central repo.
> > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>
> > <
> http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
> >
> > >
> > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please
> provide surefire
> > results, as
> > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I
> added.
> >
> > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Test set:
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0,
> Time elapsed:
> > 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> >
> testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
> :25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke
> (Method.java:585)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare (
> TestCase.java:127)
> > at
> >
> junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > at
> >
> junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
> (TestSuite.java :208)
> > at
> junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > :39)
> > at
> >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>
> > at
> java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> > (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>
> > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> > at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at
> java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>
> > (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
> (SurefireBooter.java:818)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I
> don't see from
> > the first
> > > lines how it is invalid.
> >
> > Index:
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> >
> >
> ===================================================================
>
> > ---
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > (revision 0)
> > +++
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
> > (working copy)
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -package
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> >
> > /*
> > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
> (ASF) under one
> > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > * under the License.
> > */
> >
> > -import
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <
> emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>>
> > > <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net> <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > >
> > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean
> package -Ptck' on
> > the hg
> > > provider
> > >
> > > For your next patch, generate a valid one,
> the one in
> > SCM-319 wasn't
> > > correct (look at first lines)
> > >
> > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the
> 1.0, if I don't
> > have
> > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in
> the next version.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > During further use/testing of the
> mercurial provider
> > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that
> the "tag"
> > command was
> > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > >
> > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>>> <mailto:
> > > rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>>>>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> <mailto:
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com>.
I have a local version here which now passes all Tck tests by doing the
inventory of the repository after the tag.
Emmanuel, I can provide you with a patch, but can you give me advice on how
to get Subversion to produce a diff file (from svn diff) that will do the
right thing with creating new files? All the output I get from svn diff
seems to do the same as the patch I provided to you yesterday.
Ryan
On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com> wrote:
>
> Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class
> TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of tagged
> files and the other which does not, leaving that list null. If the
> intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then the other
> constructor should not exist. Alternatively, if this is not the intention,
> then the Tck test should not require that this list be populated.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged
> > files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the Tck
> > test should require that a provider return a list like this in this case.
> > I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform an
> > additional operation to list all the files in the repository given that it
> > already is doing two operations: tag and push.
> >
> > Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this
> > test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test suite.
> > I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works, and I think
> > this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the
> > Mercurial provider.
> >
> > Your call,
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <emmanuel@venisse.net > wrote:
> > >
> > > It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must
> > > contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag
> > > command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> > > > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
> > > arbitrary
> > > > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
> > > revision
> > > > of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to require the
> > > > ability to tag specific files only.
> > > >
> > > > Ryan
> > > >
> > > > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < rdaum@informiam.com
> > > > <ma...@informiam.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
> > >
> > > > saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check out
> > > the
> > > > branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in
> > > before
> > > > the release.
> > > >
> > > > Ryan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > > > <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
> > > > commits you
> > > > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about
> > > missing
> > > > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
> > > > actually run
> > > > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
> > > > instructions on
> > > > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> > > >
> > > > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be
> > > build
> > > > when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central
> > > repo.
> > > > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>
> > > > < http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> > > >)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide
> > > surefire
> > > > results, as
> > > > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
> > > >
> > > > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Test set:
> > > >
> > > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> > > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
> > > elapsed:
> > > > 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > > testTagCommandTest(
> > > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> > > ) Time
> > > > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > > > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest
> > > (TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0
> > > (Native
> > > > Method)
> > > > at
> > > > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > > > at
> > > > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java :25)
> > > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
> > > > at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java
> > > :154)
> > > > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare ( TestCase.java
> > > :127)
> > > > at
> > > > junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > > > at
> > > > junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> > >
> > > > at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java
> > > :109)
> > > > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> > > > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
> > > > at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> > > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0
> > > (Native
> > > > Method)
> > > > at
> > > > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > > > :39)
> > > > at
> > > > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > > > at
> > > org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> > > > (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet
> > > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> > > > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > > > at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(
> > > Surefire.java:132)
> > > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0
> > > (Native
> > > > Method)
> > > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > > > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > > > at
> > > > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (
> > > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> > > > (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > > > at
> > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> > > SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > > > at
> > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main (
> > > SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see
> > > from
> > > > the first
> > > > > lines how it is invalid.
> > > >
> > > > Index:
> > > >
> > > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ===================================================================
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > > > (revision 0)
> > > > +++
> > > >
> > > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > >
> > > > (working copy)
> > > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> > > > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under
> > > one
> > > > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > > > * under the License.
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils;
> > > > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> > > >
> > > > Emmanuel
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryan
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > > > <ma...@venisse.net>
> > > > > <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net
> > > >>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck'
> > > on
> > > > the hg
> > > > > provider
> > > > >
> > > > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
> > > > SCM-319 wasn't
> > > > > correct (look at first lines)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I
> > > don't
> > > > have
> > > > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next
> > > version.
> > > > >
> > > > > Emmanuel
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial
> > > provider
> > > > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
> > >
> > > > command was
> > > > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > > > rdaum@informiam.com <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com>
> > > > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com>>
> > > <mailto:
> > > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > > > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com >>>
> > > > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > > rdaum@informiam.com <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com>
> > > <mailto:
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com >
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com>.
Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class
TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of tagged
files and the other which does not, leaving that list null. If the
intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then the other
constructor should not exist. Alternatively, if this is not the intention,
then the Tck test should not require that this list be populated.
Ryan
On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged
> files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the Tck
> test should require that a provider return a list like this in this case.
> I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform an
> additional operation to list all the files in the repository given that it
> already is doing two operations: tag and push.
>
> Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this
> test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test suite.
> I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works, and I think
> this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the
> Mercurial provider.
>
> Your call,
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <emmanuel@venisse.net > wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must
> > contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag
> > command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> > > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
> > arbitrary
> > > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
> > revision
> > > of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to require the
> > > ability to tag specific files only.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < rdaum@informiam.com
> > > <ma...@informiam.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
> > > saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check out the
> >
> > > branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in
> > before
> > > the release.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > > <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
> > > commits you
> > > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about
> > missing
> > > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
> > > actually run
> > > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
> > > instructions on
> > > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> > >
> > > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build
> > > when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central
> > repo.
> > > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> > > http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>
> > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide
> > surefire
> > > results, as
> > > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
> > >
> > > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> > >
> > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Test set:
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
> > elapsed:
> > > 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > > testTagCommandTest(
> > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> > > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > > at
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest
> > (TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > > Method)
> > > at
> > > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > > at
> > > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java :25)
> > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
> > > at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> > > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare( TestCase.java
> > :127)
> > > at
> > > junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > > at
> > > junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> > > at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> > > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> > > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
> > > at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > > Method)
> > > at
> > > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > > :39)
> > > at
> > > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> > > (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > > at
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet
> > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > > at
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> > > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > > at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(
> > Surefire.java:132)
> > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > > Method)
> > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > > at
> > > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (
> > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > > at
> > >
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> > > (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > > at
> > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> > SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > > at
> > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main (
> > SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see
> > from
> > > the first
> > > > lines how it is invalid.
> > >
> > > Index:
> > >
> > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > >
> > >
> > ===================================================================
> > > ---
> > >
> > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > > (revision 0)
> > > +++
> > >
> > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> >
> > > (working copy)
> > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> > > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under
> > one
> > > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > > * under the License.
> > > */
> > >
> > > -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> > > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > > >
> > > > Ryan
> > > >
> > > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > > <ma...@venisse.net>
> > > > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <mailto: emmanuel@venisse.net
> > >>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > > >
> > > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck'
> > on
> > > the hg
> > > > provider
> > > >
> > > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
> > > SCM-319 wasn't
> > > > correct (look at first lines)
> > > >
> > > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I
> > don't
> > > have
> > > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next
> > version.
> > > >
> > > > Emmanuel
> > > >
> > > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
> > > command was
> > > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > <mailto:
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com >>>
> > > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com >
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com>.
No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged files
would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the Tck test
should require that a provider return a list like this in this case. I'm
very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform an additional
operation to list all the files in the repository given that it already is
doing two operations: tag and push.
Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this
test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test suite.
I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works, and I think
this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the
Mercurial provider.
Your call,
Ryan
On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>
> It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must
> contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag
> command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary
> > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision
> > of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to require the
> > ability to tag specific files only.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <rdaum@informiam.com
> > <ma...@informiam.com>> wrote:
> >
> > So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
> > saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check out the
> > branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before
> > the release.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
> > commits you
> > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
> > actually run
> > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
> > instructions on
> > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> >
> > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build
> > when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
> > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> > http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
> >
> > >
> > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire
> > results, as
> > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
> >
> > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Test set:
> > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> > testTagCommandTest(
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(
> TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
> > at
> > junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > at
> > junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> > at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java
> :208)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> > :39)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> > (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(
> AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java
> :132)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> > Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> > (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at
> > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> >
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> > (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> SurefireBooter.java:818)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from
> > the first
> > > lines how it is invalid.
> >
> > Index:
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> >
> >
> ===================================================================
> > ---
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > (revision 0)
> > +++
> >
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > (working copy)
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> >
> > /*
> > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > * under the License.
> > */
> >
> > -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net>
> > > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > >
> > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on
> > the hg
> > > provider
> > >
> > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
> > SCM-319 wasn't
> > > correct (look at first lines)
> > >
> > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I
> don't
> > have
> > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next
> version.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
> > command was
> > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > >
> > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> <mailto:
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
Emmanuel
Ryan Daum a écrit :
> What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary
> files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision
> of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to require the
> ability to tag specific files only.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <rdaum@informiam.com
> <ma...@informiam.com>> wrote:
>
> So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
> saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check out the
> branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before
> the release.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
> commits you
> > checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
> actually run
> > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
> instructions on
> > how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
> My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build
> when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
> You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>
> >
> > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire
> results, as
> > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
> the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Test set:
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
> testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.NullPointerException
> at
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
> at
> junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> at
> junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> :39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
> >
> > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from
> the first
> > lines how it is invalid.
>
> Index:
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
> ===================================================================
> ---
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> (revision 0)
> +++
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> (working copy)
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
> /*
> * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> * under the License.
> */
>
> -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
> ...
>
> It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
> Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> >
> > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on
> the hg
> > provider
> >
> > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
> SCM-319 wasn't
> > correct (look at first lines)
> >
> > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't
> have
> > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
> command was
> > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > >
> > > Please see the patch attached to
> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Ryan Daum
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto: rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>> <mailto:
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com>.
What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM providers
(hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary files? Many
SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision of the entire
repository. The parent tck test seems to require the ability to tag
specific files only.
Ryan
On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com> wrote:
>
> So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're saying is
> unless you branched (did you? where can I check out the branch), there's no
> way at all that my changes can make it in before the release.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
> > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't actually run
> > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions
> > on
> > > how to get the latest checkout to build?
> >
> > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when the
> > 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
> > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
> >
> > >
> > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire results,
> > as
> > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
> >
> > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Test set:
> > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2 sec
> > <<< FAILURE!
> > testTagCommandTest(
> > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> > java.lang.NullPointerException
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest
> > (TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
> > at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> > at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> > at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
> > at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java :39)
> > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute (
> > JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet
> > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute (
> > AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> > at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (
> > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > at
> > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess (
> > SurefireBooter.java:290)
> > at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> > SurefireBooter.java:818)
> > at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> > SurefireBooter.java:818)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the
> > first
> > > lines how it is invalid.
> >
> > Index:
> > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> >
> > ===================================================================
> > ---
> > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > (revision 0)
> > +++
> > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> > (working copy)
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
> >
> > /*
> > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> > * under the License.
> > */
> >
> > -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > It isn't a patch for a file creation.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> > > <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> > >
> > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
> > > provider
> > >
> > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319
> > wasn't
> > > correct (look at first lines)
> > >
> > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
> > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
> > > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > > >
> > > > Please see the patch attached to
> > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Daum
> > > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
You can checkout the 1.0 tag (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/scm/tags/maven-scm-1.0/) or the revision before the release creation
Emmanuel
Ryan Daum a écrit :
> So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're saying
> is unless you branched (did you? where can I check out the branch),
> there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before the release.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
> > checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't actually run
> > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
> instructions on
> > how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
> My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when
> the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
> You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts
> (http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
> <http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>
> >
> > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire
> results, as
> > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
> the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Test set:
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2
> sec <<< FAILURE!
> testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.NullPointerException
> at
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
> at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
> :39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
> (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
> (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
> (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
> (SurefireBooter.java:290)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
> >
> > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the
> first
> > lines how it is invalid.
>
> Index:
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
> ===================================================================
> ---
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> (revision 0)
> +++
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> (working copy)
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
> +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
> /*
> * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> * under the License.
> */
>
> -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
> +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
> ...
>
> It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
> Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>
> > <mailto:emmanuel@venisse.net <ma...@venisse.net>>> wrote:
> >
> > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> >
> > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
> > provider
> >
> > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319
> wasn't
> > correct (look at first lines)
> >
> > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
> > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
> command was
> > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > >
> > > Please see the patch attached to
> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Ryan Daum
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>> <mailto:
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> <mailto:rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com>.
So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're saying is
unless you branched (did you? where can I check out the branch), there's no
way at all that my changes can make it in before the release.
Ryan
On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
> > checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0, so I can't actually run
> > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions on
> > how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
> My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when the 1.0will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
> You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
> http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/)
>
> >
> > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire results, as
> > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
> the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Test set: org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2 sec <<<
> FAILURE!
> testTagCommandTest(
> org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time
> elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.NullPointerException
> at
> org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(
> TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
> at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
> at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
> at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute(
> JUnitTestSet.java:213)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(
> AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute(
> AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess(
> SurefireBooter.java:290)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> SurefireBooter.java:818)
> at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(
> SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
> >
> > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the first
> > lines how it is invalid.
>
> Index:
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> ===================================================================
> ---
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> (revision 0)
> +++
> maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
> (working copy)
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag;
> +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
> /*
> * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
> * under the License.
> */
>
> -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils;
> +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
> ...
>
> It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
> Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <emmanuel@venisse.net
> > <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
> >
> > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
> >
> > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
> > provider
> >
> > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't
> > correct (look at first lines)
> >
> > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
> > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
> > > missing. I've just fixed this.
> > >
> > > Please see the patch attached to
> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Ryan Daum
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Daum
> > > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > > 647.724.5232 x 2073
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
Ryan Daum a écrit :
> Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
> checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0, so I can't actually run
> through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions on
> how to get the latest checkout to build?
My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/)
>
> What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire results, as
> I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test set: org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208)
at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute(JUnitTestSet.java:213)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess(SurefireBooter.java:290)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
> Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the first
> lines how it is invalid.
Index: maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
===================================================================
--- maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java (revision 0)
+++ maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag;
+package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
/*
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
@@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
* under the License.
*/
-import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils;
+import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
...
It isn't a patch for a file creation.
Emmanuel
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <emmanuel@venisse.net
> <ma...@venisse.net>> wrote:
>
> I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>
> You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
> provider
>
> For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't
> correct (look at first lines)
>
> I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
> your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
> > missing. I've just fixed this.
> >
> > Please see the patch attached to
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ryan Daum
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com> <mailto:
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Ryan Daum <rd...@informiam.com>.
Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you checked
in earlier today, because it complains about missing
org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0, so I can't actually run through
the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions on how to get
the latest checkout to build?
What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire results, as I
cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the first
lines how it is invalid.
Ryan
On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>
> I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>
> You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg provider
>
> For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't
> correct (look at first lines)
>
> I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have your
> patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Ryan Daum a écrit :
> > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
> > missing. I've just fixed this.
> >
> > Please see the patch attached to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ryan Daum
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Daum
> > rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> > Senior Developer, Toronto
> > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
--
Ryan Daum
rdaum@informiam.com
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Re: mercurial provider patch
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg provider
For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't correct (look at first lines)
I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
Emmanuel
Ryan Daum a écrit :
> During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
> missing. I've just fixed this.
>
> Please see the patch attached to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>
> Thank you,
> Ryan Daum
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> rdaum@informiam.com <ma...@informiam.com>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073