On 9/11/06, Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, glasser@tigris.org wrote:
> ...
> > Test for Issue #2608, which appears to be a failure to stop
> > conflicting dirprop commits on the root of repository from being
> > committed, under FSFS.
> >
> > * subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py
> > (commit_conflict_dirprops): New test.
> > (is_this_fsfs): New function, telling if the fs type is
> > FSFS. (Assumes that FSFS is the default, ick.)
> > (test_list): Add new test, XFailing under fsfs.
> ...
> > --- trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py (original)
> > +++ trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py Sun Sep 10 13:09:57 2006
> ...
> > @@ -1193,6 +1220,9 @@
> > ########################################################################
> > # Run the tests
> >
> > +def is_this_fsfs():
> > + # This assumes that fsfs is the default fs implementation.
> > + return (svntest.main.fs_type == 'fsfs' or svntest.main.fs_type is None)
> >
> > # list all tests here, starting with None:
> > test_list = [ None,
> > @@ -1202,6 +1232,7 @@
> > downdate_props,
> > remove_props,
> > update_conflict_props,
> > + XFail(commit_conflict_dirprops, is_this_fsfs),
> > commit_replacement_props,
> > revert_replacement_props,
> > inappropriate_props,
>
> The is_this_fsfs() API would be better off housed in the svntest.main
> module. Even with only one consumer ATM, housing it there reduces the
> opportunity for it to be re-implemented in another test script. How
> about naming it is_fs_type_fsfs() or fs_type_fsfs_p()?
FWIW, there are various implementations of things like is_this_dav in
various tests that should also probably be consolidated if this is
done.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Sep 11 20:29:59 2006