On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> Kouhei Sutou wrote:
>> In <495271AD.8020401_at_mail.utexas.edu>
>> "Status of TODO-1.6" on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:30:21 -0600,
>> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> * Test failures in Ruby bindings.
>>> These just look like they are the result of wrong expectations due to tree
>>> conflicts, but my understanding of ruby and the swig-rb bindings is so
>>> rudimentary as to remove all confidence in my ability to track it down. Kou,
>>> Joe, any suggestions?
>> The current test suits were all passed when they were
>> created. It means the current Subversion behavior is changed
>> since the time.
>> I don't know about tree conflicts. If the current actual
>> values are expected result, we should change the current
>> expected values. But I can't decide it...
> And I don't know enough about ruby and the test suite to determine exactly what
> the offending tests are testing. Either somebody with knowledge of both should
> comment, or perhaps you can give us an overview of what the tests are doing, and
> one of the tree conflicts people can comment on whether or not the new failures
> are expected.
I updated the tests in r35028. I used revert and resolve to make the
wc look like what I think it looked like when the test was originally
written (before merge tracking and tree conflicts. I did the follow
on to the merge tracking update a while ago). Other approaches I
tried caused subsequent assertions to fail. I'm not at all certain
this is the best approach, but it should keep us moving for the time
kou, if you have time, please review r35027 where I added
Svn::Client::Context.resolve. I added a bunch of tests to try to
covert most of the cases, but I may have gone too far. Thanks
Received on 2009-01-05 08:20:00 CET