Hi Greg,
If you have a chance, let me know if you were planning on giving any
feedback on this. Just want to be sure I answered your questions
before committing.
Thanks,
Paul
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:22 PM, <gstein_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: gstein
>> Date: Fri Apr 23 21:22:52 2010
>> New Revision: 937524
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=937524&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Begin new infrastructure for generating prop conflict messages. This will
>> allow us to (re)generate a property reject file at will, given a record of
>> the property conflicts on a given node.
>>
>> There are two issues for discussion and fixing in a future revision:
>> - incoming-delete will remove local-add (it should conflict?)
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I think the correct behavior is: An incoming-delete removes a local
> add only if the incoming base value is the *same* as the added value;
> otherwise there is a conflict. This is analogous to how we treat an
> incoming file deletion on a local file addition. It's only a tree
> conflict if the files differ.
>
> More below...
>
>> - incoming-delete will crash on a local-delete
>>
>> * subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c:
>> (generate_conflict_message): new function to generate a property
>> conflict message given the four property values involved in a 4-way
>> merge.
>> (apply_single_prop_delete): leave two notes about behavior in here (see
>> the issues above). fix message generation: use OLD_VAL, not BASE_VAL
>> (apply_single_generic_prop_change): the OLD_VAL parameter will always be
>> not-NULL, so we can simplify an if condition.
>> (svn_wc__merge_props): save away MINE_VAL, and then if we see a conflict
>> message returned by the property merging functions, then assert that
>> our new function comes up with the same message
>>
>> * subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py:
>> (prop_reject_grind): new test function to grind thru all the variations
>> of property conflicts.
>> (test_list): add new test
>>
>> * subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/sandbox.py:
>> (Sandbox.simple_propset, Sandbox.simple_propdel): new methods
>>
>> Modified:
>> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c
>> subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py
>> subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/sandbox.py
>>
>> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c?rev=937524&r1=937523&r2=937524&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c (original)
>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c Fri Apr 23 21:22:52 2010
>> @@ -709,6 +709,136 @@ svn_wc_merge_props3(svn_wc_notify_state_
>> }
>>
>>
>> +/* Generate a message to describe the property conflict among these four
>> + values.
>> +
>> + Note that this function (currently) interprets the property values as
>> + strings, but they could actually be binary values. We'll keep the
>> + types as svn_string_t in case we fix this in the future. */
>> +static const svn_string_t *
>> +generate_conflict_message(const char *propname,
>> + const svn_string_t *original,
>> + const svn_string_t *mine,
>> + const svn_string_t *incoming,
>> + const svn_string_t *incoming_base,
>> + apr_pool_t *result_pool)
>> +{
>> + if (incoming_base == NULL)
>> + {
>> + /* Attempting to add the value INCOMING. */
>> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(incoming != NULL);
>> +
>> + if (mine)
>> + {
>> + /* To have a conflict, these must be different. */
>> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(!svn_string_compare(mine, incoming));
>> +
>> + /* Note that we don't care whether MINE is locally-added or
>> + edited, or just something different that is a copy of the
>> + pristine ORIGINAL. */
>> + return svn_string_createf(result_pool,
>> + _("Trying to add new property '%s' with "
>> + "value '%s',\nbut property already "
>> + "exists with value '%s'."),
>> + propname, incoming->data, mine->data);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* To have a conflict, we must have an ORIGINAL which has been
>> + locally-deleted. */
>> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(original != NULL);
>> + return svn_string_createf(result_pool,
>> + _("Trying to create property '%s' with "
>> + "value '%s',\nbut it has been locally "
>> + "deleted."),
>> + propname, incoming->data);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (incoming == NULL)
>> + {
>> + /* Attempting to delete the value INCOMING_BASE. */
>> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(incoming_base != NULL);
>> +
>> + /* A conflict can only occur if we originally had the property;
>> + otherwise, we would have merged the property-delete into the
>> + non-existent property. */
>> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(original != NULL);
>> +
>> + if (mine && svn_string_compare(original, incoming_base))
>> + {
>> + /* We were trying to delete the correct property, but an edit
>> + caused the conflict. */
>> + return svn_string_createf(result_pool,
>> + _("Trying to delete property '%s' with "
>> + "value '%s'\nbut it has been modified "
>> + "from '%s' to '%s'."),
>> + propname, incoming_base->data,
>> + original->data, mine->data);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* We were trying to delete INCOMING_BASE but our ORIGINAL is
>> + something else entirely. */
>> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(!svn_string_compare(original, incoming_base));
>> +
>> + /* ### wait. what if we had a different property and locally
>> + ### deleted it? the statement below is gonna blow up.
>> + ### we could have: local-add, local-edit, local-del, or just
>> + ### something different (and unchanged). */
>
> <snip>
>
>> @@ -1166,6 +1296,8 @@ apply_single_prop_delete(svn_wc_notify_s
>>
>> if (! base_val)
>> {
>> + /* ### what about working_val? what if we locally-added? */
>> +
>> apr_hash_set(working_props, propname, APR_HASH_KEY_STRING, NULL);
>> if (old_val)
>> /* This is a merge, merging a delete into non-existent */
>> @@ -1216,11 +1348,13 @@ apply_single_prop_delete(svn_wc_notify_s
>> cancel_func, cancel_baton,
>> dry_run, scratch_pool));
>> if (got_conflict)
>> + /* ### wait. what if we had a different property and locally
>> + ### deleted it? the statement below is gonna blow up. */
>
> Attached is a patch that fixes the segfault and makes an incoming
> deletion on a local addition, where the incoming base value differs
> from the added value, a conflict, rather than unconditionally deleting
> the addition.
>
> I also tweaked prop_test.py 32 to check the results of the *.prej file.
>
> This patch adds two new potential conflicts messages:
>
> Incoming delete on local add of different value:
>
> Trying to delete property 'del.add' with value 'repos',
> but property has been locally added with value 'local'.
>
> Incoming delete on local delete of different value:
>
> Trying to delete property 'del.del' with value 'repos',
> but property with value 'local' is locally deleted.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Paul
>
> [[[
> Fix some property merge conflict bugs.
>
> 1) Incoming delete on a local add of a different value is now a
> conflict. Previously it was a clean merge and the prop was
> deleted.
>
> 2) Incoming delete on a local delete where the incoming base value
> differs from the local value is now a conflict. Previously
> this caused a segfault.
>
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c
>
> (generate_conflict_message): Handle incoming delete on local add and
> incoming delete on local delete of a different prop value. Consistently
> use a trailing ',' after the first line of each prej conflict message.
>
> (apply_single_prop_delete): Stop considering an incoming delete on a local
> add as a merge.
>
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/prop_tests.py
>
> (prop_reject_grind): Start testing incoming delete on local delete of
> different prop value. Verify the resulting *.prej file.
> ]]]
>
Received on 2010-05-20 21:26:45 CEST