On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Philip Martin
> Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> writes:
>> Apparently, the test is comparing the 'Repository Root' from the
>> output of 'svn info' with the expected repository url. When I run 'svn
>> info' manually on ...\svn-test-work\working_copies\basic_tests-29, I
>> see the following:
>> Path: R:\test\subversion\tests\cmdline\svn-test-work\working_copies\basic_tests-29
>> Working Copy Root Path:
>> URL: file:///R%7C/test/subversion/tests/cmdline/svn-test-work/local_tmp/repos
>> Repository Root:
>> So the '%7C' instead of ':' seems to be the problem (BTW, %7C is the
>> pipe symbol, which seems quite strange here).
>> When I use the same svn binary to do a new checkout of the same
>> repository, over file://, I don't get this problem. So that indicates
>> it's a problem with the test suite.
> tests.log should show the exact command used to do the checkout. Is it
> the same as the command you are running manually?
Gahh! For some reason tests.log doesn't show much detail:
PASS: basic_tests.py 26: basic info command
PASS: basic_tests.py 27: ignore files matching local ignores in added dirs
PASS: basic_tests.py 28: add ignored files in added dirs
2012-04-17 22:38:44 [WARNING] Bad or missing repository root
2012-04-17 22:38:44 [WARNING]
Traceback (most recent call last):
line 1332, in run
rc = self.pred.run(sandbox)
line 176, in run
line 1709, in repos_root
line 1703, in check_repos_root
FAIL: basic_tests.py 29: check that repos root gets set on checkout
PASS: basic_tests.py 30: checks peg revision on filename with @ sign
PASS: basic_tests.py 31: info on file not existing in HEAD
I tried adding -v to win-tests.py, but that didn't increase the
verbosity level of the logging.
What am I missing? How can I get the usual (old) verbosity back in the log file?
I remember reading commits and some discussion about using the python
logging framework from the test-suite ... but don't know the details.
Is this supposed to be backward compatible, and show the same
log-level as there used to be?
Received on 2012-04-17 22:49:01 CEST