Re: tree-conflicts: please review to determine desired behaviour in detail

Hi folks,

I am delighted to read these great reviews!

Let me give a few comments:

Julian Foad wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 17:36 +0200, Stephen Butler wrote:
>>>> Following notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt, we want 'svn update' to skip
>>>> any directory scheduled for deletion, and to instead record the tree
>>>> conflict in the parent directory.
>>> Also, similarly, I claim we want 'svn update' to skip any FILE scheduled
>>> for deletion, and to instead record the tree conflict in the parent
>>> directory. Yes?

Yes, exactly, as you have agreed upon. Same for the other similar cases.

>> In the meantime, I've been working through more tests in Neels' list.
>> Skipping updates of tree-conflicted files makes all of the update tests
>> simpler: the expected output is the same for all.
>
> That's good.

Very much so.

> Is the attached patch for "update_tests.py" what you expect? (This patch
> doesn't make the change to expect the victim to be reported, but just
> the other changes we talked about in this thread so far.)

Yes, that looks very good, except that you need to copy() a tree before
tweaking it. Otherwise, the global is tweaked, leaving a smudge behind in
subsequent use. I've attached another diff.

Great, this also gives me a directive to follow for the other cases. I'll
give a shot at updating them myself...

~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