On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 01:09:46PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:53:19AM +0800, yellow.flying wrote:
> > @@ -1384,17 +1388,72 @@
> > expected_status2.tweak('A/B/lambda', status='M ')
> > svntest.actions.run_and_verify_status(wc2_dir, expected_status2)
> > - # Commit should fail, even though one target is a "child" of the other.
> > - svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn("Unexpectedly not locked",
> > - None, svntest.verify.AnyOutput,
> > + # Commit should fail, even though one target is a "child" of the other,
> > + # since targets come from different wcs.
> > + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, None, svntest.verify.AnyOutput,
> > 'commit', '-m', 'log',
> > wc_dir, wc2_dir)
> In this hunk, you have changed the function to expect the commit
> to succeed, but you didn't update the comment above the function!
Hrmmm... I was too quick again... :(
You actually wrote the test to expect failure, so the comment
is correct. But we want the test to check for the situation we
will have when issue #2381 is solved. See r38030.
So, please forget my comments about not changing the comments :)
Sorry about that,
Received on 2009-06-14 14:24:24 CEST