On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> * #3334: Tree conflicts "merry-go-round" about update updating the base.
>>> Julian Foad is working on this. Done for when victim is a file, still
>>> doing for when victim is a directory. [julianfoad]
>>> See: <http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1019712>.
>> I'm struggling with this and could use some help. I have rather little
>> time to look at it these days.
>> On the issue-3334-dirs branch, the remaining problem is "just" a matter
>> of scheduling a directory tree to be re-added as a copy of what it was
>> The function "schedule_existing_item_for_re_add()" tries to do this, but
>> doesn't get the result quite right.
>> On the branch I added a new "test" (update_tests.py 53). This "test"
>> doesn't actually test anything, but just runs the tree-conflict
>> scenario, and also runs a manual schedule-as-re-add command sequence, so
>> that we can (manually) compare the resulting "entries" files.
>> In test 53, the tree conflict victim is directory A/ and A's THIS_DIR
>> entry needs a "revision" of 1, but it gets a revision of 2. That's all
>> that is wrong with its THIS_DIR entry. There is nothing wrong with its
>> children, I think. The only other problem is A's entry in its parent,
>> which gets several fields wrong (different from the "manual copy" WC).
>> Please could someone have a look at the differences between the entries
>> files in test 53's two WCs, and see how to make
>> "schedule_existing_item_for_re_add()" create that state.
> I'll look at this today...and probably tomorrow too I'm sure :-\
I think I've got it, well most of it anyway, see r35667. I still need
to check the XFailing update and switch tests, they may need some
expectation adjustment. Also, switch_tests.py 33 'tree conflicts on
switch 2.1', while it passes, still shows a bunch of subtrees as
switched when they are not. This happens in trunk too, so it's
nothing new with this branch. I'll look into both tomorrow, but in
the meantime please take a look.
Received on 2009-02-04 06:59:30 CET