On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:15:57AM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Can you file this recipe/patch as an issue? We have a number of 'svn
> merge' bugs.
I found this related to #1176 in synopsis. for #1176 it deals with file
targets, while this one is targets in deleted directory. #1176 is fixed
in svn_merge_wc, while the directory thing seems to be problem of reporter
or delta driver. So I'll file a new issue instead of reopening #1176
> I'm thrilled that you're writing regression tests... but let me give
> you a few pointers. :-)
heh, just found it a better way describing the problem and also have
additional benefits (such as thrilling people)
> If you look throughout our test suite, you'll notice that this isn't
> the way we perform commits or updates. The "proper" way is to build
> three trees: an expected output tree ("what output paths will the
> command print?"), an expected status tree ("what will 'svn st -v' say
> after the command finishes?"), and an expected disk tree ("what will
> the wc file contents be after the command finishes?") That's why we
> have a python tree-class. Once you build the expected trees, you pass
> them to svntest.actions.run_and_verify_[commit|update](), which runs
> the command and compares actual trees with expected trees.
>
> If you simply check for error, you don't really know if the command
> behaved the way you expected; you just know that it didn't bomb out. :-)
ya, that's what i'm trying to do. since the result of ignored entry is still
undetermined (a warning or maybe some flag in merge result status).
and I was just copying from a test "merge_catches_nonexistent_target" above.
my python skill is still copy+edit.
I'll attach the updated patch to the issue I file. thanks for the hints!
Cheers,
CLK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jul 6 17:07:59 2003