Thanks for the ping.
The patch looks good except for the incoming-delete case. If the
svn_string_compare() succeeds, but mine==NULL, then you get the crash.
I think the mine==NULL needs to remain on the outer-if test.
Other than that... looks great. Commit!
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:26, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 22:59:57 CEST