On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, David Glasser wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 1:42 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Author: dlr
> > Date: Mon Dec 10 13:42:01 2007
> > New Revision: 28378
> > Log:
> > Add test for issue #3039, "'update -N' on a path to be deleted
> > corrupts working copy".
> > * subversion/tests/cmdline/depth_tests.py
> > (depthy_update_above_dir_to_be_deleted): Add new test case.
> > (test_list): Add new test case to list, currently XFAIL.
> > Found by: Eric Miller
> Nice test, Dan! I like how you abstracted out the repeated elements;
> for once I can actually read the test and convince myself that it's
Thanks, I had a good shell script to follow. ;-)
> Do you think it's worth also testing the variants where "A" is the
> target of the update?
Yes. I'd been thinking about that myself...
> > + for depth in sbox_for_depth.keys():
> > + wc_dir = sbox_for_depth[depth].wc_dir
> > + (expected_output_func, expected_disk, expected_status_func) = \
> > + expected_trees_for_depth[depth]
> > + #print depth
> > + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_update(wc_dir,
> > + expected_output_func(wc_dir),
> > + expected_disk,
> > + expected_status_func(wc_dir),
> > + None, None, None, None, None,
> > + False,
> > + "--depth=%s" % depth, wc_dir)
> As a tiny python style thing here, I might have written
> for depth, sbox in sbox_for_depth.iteritems():
> ... though maybe we never quite decided that requiring 2.2 for the
> test suite is OK.
Yah, good tip. INSTALL says the test suite only requires Python 2.0 on Unix.
Is this something that folks are wanting to change?
Received on Tue Dec 11 04:24:05 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored