Julian Foad wrote:
> svnlgo_at_mobsol.be wrote:
>
>> Quoting Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>:
>>
>>> Can I ask if this proposal is OK in concept?
>>
>>
>> Does the branch pass the existing regression tests? If you like, I can
>> trigger
>> the 4 build slaves to fetch, build and test the tree-conflicts branch.
>
> No, currently a bunch of existing tests don't pass. That's one of the
> things we need to do: go through them and see which tests simply need to
> be updated and whether any of the failures indicate bugs that we need to
> fix.
I think this is the list of broken tests, in case anyone wants to look at one
of them:
FAIL: checkout_tests.py 13: co handles obstructing paths scheduled for add
FAIL: update_tests.py 14: update missing dir to rev in which it is absent
FAIL: update_tests.py 15: another "hudson" problem: updates that delete
FAIL: update_tests.py 31: forced up fails with some types of obstructions
FAIL: update_tests.py 33: update wc containing a replaced-with-history file
FAIL: update_tests.py 34: update handles obstructing paths scheduled for add
FAIL: switch_tests.py 21: forced switch fails with some types of obstuctions
FAIL: switch_tests.py 24: switch tolerates WC adds
.. plus some tests in "merge_tests.py" that cause tree conflicts, that I have
made XFail for now.
Many of these are to do with obstructions, which is a part of the behaviour
that's not yet well defined, so bear in mind that we need to define what we
want to happen as well as "fixing" them.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-28 20:10:29 CEST