Re: Fwd: [PATCH] Fix a ruby test failure

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> To the list this time. Doh.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh_at_gmail.com>
>>> Date: Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix a ruby test failure
>>> To: "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Hyrum,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>> Kou, Joe,
>>>> This fixes a ruby test failure on trunk, some variation thereof fixes the
>>>> failure on 1.5.x. My ruby-test-swig-fu is pretty weak, so I'm posting here
>>>> before committing. If either of you could look at it, that'd be great.
>>>>
>>>> -Hyrum
>>>>
>>>> [[[
>>>> * subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_wc.rb
>>>> (test_relocate): Fix a ruby test expectation.
>>>> ]]]
>>>>
>>>> Index: subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_wc.rb
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_wc.rb (revision 34821)
>>>> +++ subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_wc.rb (working copy)
>>>> @@ -995,10 +995,14 @@
>>>> assert_equal([
>>>> [@fs.uuid, dir2_uri, nil],
>>>> [@fs.uuid, dir2_uri, dir2_uri],
>>>> - [nil, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir1}", dir2_uri],
>>>> - [nil, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir1}/#{file1}", dir2_uri],
>>>> - [nil, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir2}", dir2_uri],
>>>> - [nil, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir2}/#{file2}", dir2_uri],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir1}", nil],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir1}", dir2_uri],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir1}/#{file1}", nil],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir1}/#{file1}", dir2_uri],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir2}", nil],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir2}", dir2_uri],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir2}/#{file2}", nil],
>>>> + [@fs.uuid, "#{dir2_uri}/#{dir2}/#{file2}", dir2_uri],
>>>> ],
>>>> values)
>>>> assert(dir2_uri, access.entry(@wc_path).url)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've been trying to figure out when that test started failing and why
>>> the validate notification is now called so many more times than it
>>> used to be. I can only work on this for a few hours a week, so I
>>> don't know when I'll have answers to those questions. Personally, I
>>> prefer to include more info about why the test expectations need to
>>> change in the commit, but defer to your best judgement wrt committing
>>> this patch.
>>
>> And my best judgment says to let somebody who knows something about the Ruby
>> bindings make the call. :) This was just an attempt to get the test suite
>> passing again, especially given the imminent release of 1.5.5. But if you or
>> Kou thinks the problem is more than skin deep, I'm happy to defer to your best
>> judgment.
>>
>
> Honestly, at this point I don't know that fixing the expectations
> isn't the best answer. All I know is the problem started on trunk
> somewhere between r33776 and r33810, and I'm done for tonight.
>
> G'nite
> --
> Joe
>

Couldn't sleep. It was

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r33786 | rhuijben | 2008-10-20 11:49:51 -0700 (Mon, 20 Oct 2008) | 9 lines

Fix info_tests 3: "info on new dir with mkdir". Copy the repository uuid
from the parent entry into the entries for new directories.

* subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c
  (svn_wc_add3): Copy uuid from the parent directory entry to a new
    subdirectory if available.
* subversion/tests/cmdline/info_tests.py
  (test_list): Remove XFail from info_on_mkdir.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which to me explains why the UUIDs started showing up as the first
element of the inner arrays, but not why we get two notifications
about some of the elements: the first with a nil root_url, the second
with a root_url. Hmm, looks like that was the expected behaviour for
the first element in the original expectation.

I think fixing the expectation is the reasonable thing to do. Ta for
your patience.

--
Joe
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=987428