Re: tree-conflicts: patch for improved cmdline tests

Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 02:36:48PM +0200, Neels Janosch Hofmeyr wrote:
>> Currently, most of these new tests still yield undesirable results. The
>> course that I aim for is this:
>>
>> 1) Commit the new tree-conflicts tests, so that they PASS the current
>> tree-conflicts branch, even though many test results are still
>> undesirable. (This patch)
>
> Hey Neels,
>
> note that there's also XFail(), which can be used to mark
> tests which are expected to fail.
>
> In this case, almost every test would need to be flagged XFail.
> However, migrating tests from XFail to PASS by changing Subversion's
> code only might be less confusing than migrating tests from PASS
> to PASS by changing both Subversion's code and the test in the same go.
>
> The net result is the same.
>
> But I assume that we don't really know yet what the desired
> result actually is for many cases, right? :)
>
>> 2) One by one, look at the undesirable results and fix them in subsequent
>> patches. Patches should both fix the situation and make the tests
>> pass the fixed situation.
>
> Maybe make that 3 steps?
>
> 1) Have tons of tests that PASS the current state of things (this patch)
>
> for test in tests:
> 2) Figure out what the desired result for $test should be,
> make $test check for that and mark it XFail.
> 3) Implement desired behaviour in Subversion's code, making
> $test PASS, and remove its XFail status.

I would prefer taking the results one by one, adjusting the tests one by
one, because that clarifies the current development:

- As soon as you have fixed the one issue you were addressing, the tests
PASS again.

- It is easier to see how one fix affects other situations that hadn't been
considered. As soon as something "else" is changed, another test fails.

Given the complexity of tree-conflicts, it's nice to have some clarity...

For this way of action, XFail is not useful, since I want the tests to pass
exactly when I have got the fix right. Also, it would be nice to not have
segmentation faults around. So that's my first fix candidate.

>
>> So, as mentioned, this patch passes the current situation on the
>> tree-conflicts branch. But, one test case cannot be passed, because it fails
>> in a segmentation fault!
>
> That is bad.
>
>> I have investigated this and posted a preliminary patch in another mail:
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=141887
>
> Steve and Julian, could one of you take a look at this?
>
>> I would like this patch to be committed on the tree-conflicts branch, so
>> that continuing work on fixing tree-conflicts situations can be comprehensive.
>
> I'll leave that to Steve and Julian as well, as I'm bound up
> with other things at the moment.

Did I read a +1 between the lines here? ;)

Thanks!
Neels

-- 
Neels Hofmeyr -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
phone: +49 30 23458696  mobile: +49 177 2345869  fax: +49 30 23458695
http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
Handelsreg: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194