On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Philip Martin wrote:
> lundblad@tigris.org writes:
>
> > Author: lundblad
> > Date: Tue May 31 16:40:03 2005
> > New Revision: 14898
>
> > +def lock_uri_encoded(sbox):
> > + "lock and unlock a file with an URI-unsafe name"
> > +
> > + sbox.build()
> > + wc_dir = sbox.wc_dir
> > +
> > + # lock a file as wc_author
> > + fname = 'amazing space'
> > + file_path = os.path.join(sbox.wc_dir, fname)
> > +
> > + svntest.main.file_append(file_path, "This represents a binary file\n")
> > + svntest.main.run_svn(None, "add", file_path)
> > + svntest.main.run_svn(None, 'commit',
> > + '--username', svntest.main.wc_author,
> > + '--password', svntest.main.wc_passwd,
> > + '-m', '', file_path)
>
> run_svn does almost no error checking, run_and_verify_commit would be
> much better. I suppose you could claim that the subsequent lock will
> ensure that the commit worked, except...
>
> > + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, None, None, 'lock',
> > + '--username', svntest.main.wc_author,
> > + '--password', svntest.main.wc_passwd,
> > + '-m', '', file_path)
>
> ...there is almost no error checking here either. run_and_verify_svn
> is a bit better than run_svn but it still doesn't really verify that a
> lock got created. Using 'svn info' or run_and_verify_status would be
> an improvement.
>
I'll take a look.
> > +
> > +
> > + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, None, None, 'unlock',
> > + '--username', svntest.main.wc_author,
> > + '--password', svntest.main.wc_passwd,
> > + file_path)
>
> This doesn't verify that the lock got released.
>
>
But it verifies that there was no error output. Ain't that enough? (BTW,
looking at the break_lock test, that might have the same problem)?
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 2 09:37:28 2005