On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:14, Daniel Näslund <daniel_at_longitudo.com> wrote:
> I have a patch that passes make check. But a test suite can't test
> everything (although the status code is probably one of the best covered
> due to it's part in almost every cmdline-test). Posting only the changes
> in libsvn_wc/status.c
> What I'm wondering about:
> * I'm using SVN_INVALID_REVNUM() for determining if read_info() gives us
> a valid revision. If it does I assume that we don't have to check for
> base_shadowed, addition or deletion. If the path used as IN parameter
> to read_info() is deleted, we will get a valid revision. Correct?
If you pass &revision, then it will always be assigned (unless
read_info gets an error). If you have any kind of WORKING node
(meaning an add/delete/move/copy), then it will be assigned
If there are no changes (you're looking at just a BASE node), then you
will *usually* have a valid revision. If the BASE node is incomplete,
excluded, not-present, or absent, then you can't truly rely on its
revision. (and we "should" probably set it to SVN_INVALID_REVNUM for
those four cases; Philip?)
> * svn_wc__db_scan_deletion() checks work_del_abspath. That works for all
> the cases in the test suite. I assumed that a plain delete would set
> the work_del_abspath to the root but this part of the doc comment of
> scan_deletion() says something else. Am I misinterpreting this (e.g.
> it's a part of the earlier paragraphs and has more operations done) or
> can it really be that a plain delete does not set the work_del_abspath?
> If B/W/D does not exist in the WORKING tree (we're only talking about a
> deletion of nodes of the BASE tree), then deleting B/W/D would have
> marked the subtree for deletion. BASE_DEL_ABSPATH will refer to B/W/D,
> BASE_REPLACED will be FALSE, MOVED_TO_ABSPATH will be NULL, and
> WORK_DEL_ABSPATH will be NULL.
A plain delete should not set WORK_DEL_ABSPATH (I'd call that a bug).
Only a delete of a WORKING node should set that (e.g copy/move
followed by a deletion of a child).
> * For all cases where read_info() says we have an addition (and by that
> read_info() means copied-here and moved-here too) I've set the
> revision to -1. Correct? Until committed, no revision exists is my
read_info() will return SVN_INVALID_REVNUM already, for those nodes.
Received on 2010-04-19 18:33:37 CEST