[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Road to 1.6: XFailing tests

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:41:57 +0200 (Jerusalem Standard Time)

Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 at 07:42 -0600:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I just ran 'make check' locally for both 1.5.x and trunk. I'll readily admit
> that this list is a subset of what actually difference in XFailing tests may be,
> though I'm not sure if it's a proper subset or not.
>

It's proper; I found at least these four:

Index: lock_tests.py
===================================================================
--- lock_tests.py (.../branches/1.5.x/subversion/tests/cmdline) (revision 34429)
+++ lock_tests.py (.../trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline) (revision 34429)
@@ -1448 +1450 @@ test_list = [ None,
- unlock_wrong_token,
+ XFail(unlock_wrong_token, svntest.main.is_ra_type_dav),
@@ -1450 +1452,2 @@ test_list = [ None,
- unlocked_lock_of_other_user,
+ XFail(unlocked_lock_of_other_user,
+ svntest.main.is_ra_type_dav)
Index: prop_tests.py
===================================================================
--- prop_tests.py (.../branches/1.5.x/subversion/tests/cmdline) (revision 34429)
+++ prop_tests.py (.../trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline) (revision 34429)
@@ -1646 +1728,2 @@ test_list = [ None,
- Skip(revprop_change, is_non_posix_and_non_windows_os),
+ Skip(XFail(revprop_change, svntest.main.is_ra_type_dav),
+ is_non_posix_and_non_windows_os),
Index: commit_tests.py
===================================================================
--- commit_tests.py (.../branches/1.5.x/subversion/tests/cmdline) (revision 34429)
+++ commit_tests.py (.../trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline) (revision 34429)
@@ -2546 +2705 @@ test_list = [ None,
- commit_out_of_date_deletions,
+ XFail(commit_out_of_date_deletions, svntest.main.is_ra_type_svn),

I didn't check the C tests.

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 16:42:25 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.