Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 at 19:56 -0600:
> In preparing for the pending branch of 1.6, I took a look this afternoon at the
> current XFailing tests on trunk, compared to the XFailing tests on 1.5.x. I
> would consider any test which currently fails on trunk, expected or not, which
> doesn't fail on 1.5.x to be a demonstration of a bug. Those tests are:
>
+1, but how did you get this list? Some of the tests are *conditionally*
XFail (depending on the RA layer and platform). e.g., I remember one test
that was XFail over ra_dav in 1.5, and now is XFail over ra_svn.
Daniel
> XFAIL: checkout_tests.py 13: co handles obstructing paths scheduled for add
> XFAIL: update_tests.py 31: forced up fails with some types of obstructions
> XFAIL: update_tests.py 33: update wc containing a replaced-with-history file
> XFAIL: update_tests.py 34: update handles obstructing paths scheduled for add
> XFAIL: update_tests.py 50: tree conflicts on update 2.3
> XFAIL: switch_tests.py 21: forced switch detects tree conflicts
> XFAIL: log_tests.py 21: test log -c on range of changes
> XFAIL: log_tests.py 22: test log -c on comma-separated list of changes
> XFAIL: diff_tests.py 49: diff URL against working copy with local mods
> XFAIL: diff_tests.py 50: diff -r1 of removed file to its local addition
> XFAIL: merge_tests.py 19: merge should skip over unversioned obstructions
> XFAIL: merge_tests.py 20: merge into missing must not break working copy
> XFAIL: merge_tests.py 33: merge a replacement of a directory
> XFAIL: merge_tests.py 39: conflict from merge of add over versioned file
> XFAIL: merge_tests.py 68: mergeinfo recording in skipped merge
> XFAIL: merge_tests.py 91: merge added subtree
> XFAIL: merge_tests.py 125: merge prior to rename src existence still dels src
> XFAIL: info_tests.py 2: info on added file
> XFAIL: tree_conflict_tests.py 8: up/sw dir: add onto add
> XFAIL: tree_conflict_tests.py 14: merge dir: del/rpl/mv onto not-same
>
> Some of these may be new tests in 1.6, others might just be bad expected output,
> and yet others may be regressions from 1.5. Are there any volunteers to take a
> look at the above tests and either fix them, or classify them into one of the
> above categories so that others can fix them?
>
> Thanks,
> -Hyrum
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-26 05:54:33 CET