On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 03:09:37PM -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> firemeteor_at_tigris.org writes:
> >
> > - /* TODO(#2843) Check if we need to handle exclude here. Possibly not. */
> > apr_hash_this(hi, &key, NULL, &val);
> > entry = val;
> > kind = entry->kind;
> > deleted = entry->deleted;
> >
> > + if (entry->depth == svn_depth_exclude)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > /* Convert deleted="true" into schedule="delete" for all
> > children (and grandchildren, if RECURSE is set) of the path
> > represented by ADM_ACCESS. The result of this is that when
>
> What if a child has both entry->deleted==TRUE and
> entry->depth==svn_depth_exclude? Or is that supposed to be impossible?
We should prevent this from happening. entry->deleted == TRUE just means that
the item is gone from the repos. However, the exclude assumes the item exists
in the repos.
> > + # copy A/B to A/L
> > + expected_output = ['A '+L_path+'\n']
> > + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, expected_output, [],
> > + 'cp', B_path, L_path)
> > +
> > + # revert A/L
> > + expected_output = ["Reverted '"+L_path+"'\n"]
> > + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, expected_output, [],
> > + 'revert', '--depth=infinity', L_path)
> > +
> > + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, None, [],
> > + 'rm', '--force', L_path)
> > +
> > # Exclude path B totally, in which contains an excluded subtree.
> > expected_output = svntest.wc.State(wc_dir, {
> > 'A/B' : Item(status='D '),
>
> ...it might be good to add a comment about what is being tested for in
> this new code.
Just test the simple case of copy & revert. Maybe I should make it more clear?
Rui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-08 05:02:41 CEST