Sam.... you need to relax. Remember my commit said "this isn't done
yet. Please don't try to use it."
All of these problems come from the fact that this is a work in
progress. I did the commit for safety's sake and so we could start a
discussion. There's nothing broken because there's nothing to break
-- we have no python testsuite (yet). :)
Please don't try to patch something that's a moving target. Instead,
let's talk about the design.
Sam TH <email@example.com> writes:
> [This is mostly for Ben, but the rest of you might care as well.]
> There are a number of problems that are currently causing the entire
> python testsuite to fail.
> 1. xml_tests has not been updated to reflect either the changed
> locations of some functions (like svn_wc vs svn_tree), the new names
> (wc_to_tree vs build_tree_from_wc), or the new return values. These are
> just mechanical changes.
> 2. Either you neglected to commit, or just didn't like, the code to
> convert entries files to a tree. This naturally makes using such code
> 3. The expected output for test 2 is a bunch of regular expressions,
> which do not translate nicely to a tree.
> 4. The comparison function is not smart enough to understand that some
> nodes lack of content is not a statement about the content, but a
> statement about where the node came from. Therefore, it doesn't like
> comparing a node from output paths to a node from a real file. It's
> possible to hack around this by extending compare_trees so that it can
> be told not to look at contents or props. But this should be done
> 5. A number of the tree creation functions that you wrote
> (tree_from_checkout, wc_to_tree) include the working copy directory,
> called something like wc-t1, in the tree structure. This is a
> mistake, since the name of that directory is arbitrary and not
> controlled by subversion. Also, this makes it hard to compare trees
> from two different working copies. I managed to kludge up your
> wc_to_tree function to skip this dir, but didn't know how to for
> Working around problems 1 and 2 was easy. Problem 3 I skipped, since
> it relates to a more difficult issue I brought up in my last mail. I
> kludged solutions to parts of 4 and 5. This got me to the point where
> 3 of the 4 tests pass. However, better solutions need to be found for
> 3, 4 and 5.
> sam th --- sam_at_uchicago.edu --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
> OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
> DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Disposition: inline
> This message contains data in an unrecognized format, application/pgp-signature,
> which is being decoded and written to the file named "/tmp/mm.q40629".
> If you do not want this data, you probably should delete that file.
> Wrote file /tmp/mm.q40629
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:29 2006