Hi All,
Came across this tidbit this morning:
copy_tests.py has two tests in it's test_list named "mv_unversioned_file".
There are also two definitions for mv_unversioned_file, so only the
second is used. I was going to simply rename the second instance and
commit it, but then I looked into things a bit further...never look into
things a bit further it just causes pain :-D
Both tests try to move unversioned files and were added to test fixes that
prevented seg faults. The only significant difference between the two is
that the second test uses the --force option.
The first mv_unversioned_file is from was back in the day, r1106. This
revision also modified copy.c's copy_file_administratively() to check if
the source of a move is unversioned.
The second mv_unversioned_file is from r17242 & r17243 and was added as a
test for issue #2436. r17243 checks if the source of a move is versioned
in svn_wc_copy2().
It appears that the check of the move source in svn_wc_copy2() makes the
check in copy_file_administratively() redundant, since the check in the
former is made before calling the latter and svn_wc_copy2() is the only
caller of copy_file_administratively(). FWIW, the comment for
copy_file_administratively() states clearly that we *shouldn't* have to
check for this error:
/* This function effectively creates and schedules a file for
addition, but does extra administrative things to allow it to
function as a 'copy'.
ASSUMPTIONS:
- src_path points to a file under version control
Given the above I have two questions, should I:
Q1) Just rename the second instance of mv_unversioned_file to
mv_unversioned_file2 and call it a day? Or combine the two instances of
mv_unversioned_file into one test?
Q2) Just leave copy.c alone, change the comment for
copy_file_administratively, or remove the check for "versioned-ness" in
copy_file_administratively():
Index: libsvn_wc/copy.c
===================================================================
--- copy.c (revision 19933)
+++ copy.c (working copy)
@@ -94,11 +94,6 @@
in the repository. See comment at the bottom of this file for an
explanation. */
SVN_ERR(svn_wc_entry(&src_entry, src_path, src_access, FALSE, pool));
- if (! src_entry)
- return svn_error_createf
- (SVN_ERR_UNVERSIONED_RESOURCE, NULL,
- _("Cannot copy or move '%s': it's not under version control"),
- svn_path_local_style(src_path, pool));
if ((src_entry->schedule == svn_wc_schedule_add)
|| (! src_entry->url)
|| (src_entry->copied))
Thoughts?
Paul B.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 5 19:11:52 2006