[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r937524 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: libsvn_wc/props.c tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py tests/cmdline/svntest/sandbox.py

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:59:28 -0400

Thanks for the ping.

The patch looks good except for the incoming-delete case. If the
svn_string_compare() succeeds, but mine==NULL, then you get the crash.
I think the mine==NULL needs to remain on the outer-if test.

Other than that... looks great. Commit!

Cheers,
-g

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:26, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> If you have a chance, let me know if you were planning on giving any
> feedback on this.  Just want to be sure I answered your questions
> before committing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:22 PM,  <gstein_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: gstein
>>> Date: Fri Apr 23 21:22:52 2010
>>> New Revision: 937524
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=937524&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Begin new infrastructure for generating prop conflict messages. This will
>>> allow us to (re)generate a property reject file at will, given a record of
>>> the property conflicts on a given node.
>>>
>>> There are two issues for discussion and fixing in a future revision:
>>> - incoming-delete will remove local-add (it should conflict?)
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> I think the correct behavior is: An incoming-delete removes a local
>> add only if the incoming base value is the *same* as the added value;
>> otherwise there is a conflict.  This is analogous to how we treat an
>> incoming file deletion on a local file addition.  It's only a tree
>> conflict if the files differ.
>>
>> More below...
>>
>>> - incoming-delete will crash on a local-delete
>>>
>>> * subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c:
>>>  (generate_conflict_message): new function to generate a property
>>>    conflict message given the four property values involved in a 4-way
>>>    merge.
>>>  (apply_single_prop_delete): leave two notes about behavior in here (see
>>>    the issues above). fix message generation: use OLD_VAL, not BASE_VAL
>>>  (apply_single_generic_prop_change): the OLD_VAL parameter will always be
>>>    not-NULL, so we can simplify an if condition.
>>>  (svn_wc__merge_props): save away MINE_VAL, and then if we see a conflict
>>>    message returned by the property merging functions, then assert that
>>>    our new function comes up with the same message
>>>
>>> * subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py:
>>>  (prop_reject_grind): new test function to grind thru all the variations
>>>    of property conflicts.
>>>  (test_list): add new test
>>>
>>> * subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/sandbox.py:
>>>  (Sandbox.simple_propset, Sandbox.simple_propdel): new methods
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>    subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c
>>>    subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py
>>>    subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/sandbox.py
>>>
>>> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c?rev=937524&r1=937523&r2=937524&view=diff
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c (original)
>>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c Fri Apr 23 21:22:52 2010
>>> @@ -709,6 +709,136 @@ svn_wc_merge_props3(svn_wc_notify_state_
>>>  }
>>>
>>>
>>> +/* Generate a message to describe the property conflict among these four
>>> +   values.
>>> +
>>> +   Note that this function (currently) interprets the property values as
>>> +   strings, but they could actually be binary values. We'll keep the
>>> +   types as svn_string_t in case we fix this in the future.  */
>>> +static const svn_string_t *
>>> +generate_conflict_message(const char *propname,
>>> +                          const svn_string_t *original,
>>> +                          const svn_string_t *mine,
>>> +                          const svn_string_t *incoming,
>>> +                          const svn_string_t *incoming_base,
>>> +                          apr_pool_t *result_pool)
>>> +{
>>> +  if (incoming_base == NULL)
>>> +    {
>>> +      /* Attempting to add the value INCOMING.  */
>>> +      SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(incoming != NULL);
>>> +
>>> +      if (mine)
>>> +        {
>>> +          /* To have a conflict, these must be different.  */
>>> +          SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(!svn_string_compare(mine, incoming));
>>> +
>>> +          /* Note that we don't care whether MINE is locally-added or
>>> +             edited, or just something different that is a copy of the
>>> +             pristine ORIGINAL.  */
>>> +          return svn_string_createf(result_pool,
>>> +                                    _("Trying to add new property '%s' with "
>>> +                                      "value '%s',\nbut property already "
>>> +                                      "exists with value '%s'."),
>>> +                                    propname, incoming->data, mine->data);
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +      /* To have a conflict, we must have an ORIGINAL which has been
>>> +         locally-deleted.  */
>>> +      SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(original != NULL);
>>> +      return svn_string_createf(result_pool,
>>> +                                _("Trying to create property '%s' with "
>>> +                                  "value '%s',\nbut it has been locally "
>>> +                                  "deleted."),
>>> +                                propname, incoming->data);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +  if (incoming == NULL)
>>> +    {
>>> +      /* Attempting to delete the value INCOMING_BASE.  */
>>> +      SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(incoming_base != NULL);
>>> +
>>> +      /* A conflict can only occur if we originally had the property;
>>> +         otherwise, we would have merged the property-delete into the
>>> +         non-existent property.  */
>>> +      SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(original != NULL);
>>> +
>>> +      if (mine && svn_string_compare(original, incoming_base))
>>> +        {
>>> +          /* We were trying to delete the correct property, but an edit
>>> +             caused the conflict.  */
>>> +          return svn_string_createf(result_pool,
>>> +                                    _("Trying to delete property '%s' with "
>>> +                                      "value '%s'\nbut it has been modified "
>>> +                                      "from '%s' to '%s'."),
>>> +                                    propname, incoming_base->data,
>>> +                                    original->data, mine->data);
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +      /* We were trying to delete INCOMING_BASE but our ORIGINAL is
>>> +         something else entirely.  */
>>> +      SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(!svn_string_compare(original, incoming_base));
>>> +
>>> +      /* ### wait. what if we had a different property and locally
>>> +         ### deleted it? the statement below is gonna blow up.
>>> +         ### we could have: local-add, local-edit, local-del, or just
>>> +         ### something different (and unchanged).  */
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> @@ -1166,6 +1296,8 @@ apply_single_prop_delete(svn_wc_notify_s
>>>
>>>   if (! base_val)
>>>     {
>>> +      /* ### what about working_val? what if we locally-added?  */
>>> +
>>>       apr_hash_set(working_props, propname, APR_HASH_KEY_STRING, NULL);
>>>       if (old_val)
>>>         /* This is a merge, merging a delete into non-existent */
>>> @@ -1216,11 +1348,13 @@ apply_single_prop_delete(svn_wc_notify_s
>>>                                           cancel_func, cancel_baton,
>>>                                           dry_run, scratch_pool));
>>>       if (got_conflict)
>>> +        /* ### wait. what if we had a different property and locally
>>> +           ### deleted it? the statement below is gonna blow up.  */
>>
>> Attached is a patch that fixes the segfault and makes an incoming
>> deletion on a local addition, where the incoming base value differs
>> from the added value, a conflict, rather than unconditionally deleting
>> the addition.
>>
>> I also tweaked prop_test.py 32 to check the results of the *.prej file.
>>
>> This patch adds two new potential conflicts messages:
>>
>> Incoming delete on local add of different value:
>>
>>   Trying to delete property 'del.add' with value 'repos',
>>   but property has been locally added with value 'local'.
>>
>> Incoming delete on local delete of different value:
>>
>>   Trying to delete property 'del.del' with value 'repos',
>>   but property with value 'local' is locally deleted.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> [[[
>> Fix some property merge conflict bugs.
>>
>> 1) Incoming delete on a local add of a different value is now a
>>   conflict.  Previously it was a clean merge and the prop was
>>   deleted.
>>
>> 2) Incoming delete on a local delete where the incoming base value
>>   differs from the local value is now a conflict.  Previously
>>   this caused a segfault.
>>
>> * subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c
>>
>>  (generate_conflict_message): Handle incoming delete on local add and
>>   incoming delete on local delete of a different prop value.  Consistently
>>   use a trailing ',' after the first line of each prej conflict message.
>>
>>  (apply_single_prop_delete): Stop considering an incoming delete on a local
>>   add as a merge.
>>
>> * subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py
>>
>>  (prop_reject_grind): Start testing incoming delete on local delete of
>>   different prop value.  Verify the resulting *.prej file.
>> ]]]
>>
>
Received on 2010-05-20 22:59:57 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.