Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 16:28:49 +0530:
> Hi Daniel,
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
> > Not your fault, but that's not what I meant. What I meant was to check for no
> > unexpected stderr (e.g., no "svn: warning %s" or similar).
> > For example, you could do that by running 'svnrdump -q' and then verifying that
> > *nothing* was printed to stderr.
> Is this alright?
> * cmdline/svnrdump_tests.py (run_test): Run svnrdump with '-q' and
Please give the path relative to the root of trunk:
> check that nothing is printed to stderr.
> Review by: danielsh
Please don't add "Review by" before I've actually reviewed the patch, thanks :-)
(i.e., you can add it, if necessary, after I actually reviewed the first
> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/svnrdump_tests.py
> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/svnrdump_tests.py (revision 978841)
> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/svnrdump_tests.py (working copy)
> @@ -73,15 +73,15 @@ def run_test(sbox, dumpfile_name):
> svntest.actions.run_and_verify_load(sbox.repo_dir, svnadmin_dumpfile)
> # Create a dump file using svnrdump
> - r, svnrdump_dumpfile, err = svntest.main.run_svnrdump(sbox.repo_url)
> + r, svnrdump_dumpfile, err = svntest.main.run_svnrdump('-q', sbox.repo_url)
> # Check error code
> if (r != 0):
> raise svntest.Failure('Result code not 0')
> # Check the output from stderr
> - if not err.startswith('* Dumped revision'):
> - raise svntest.Failure('No valid output')
> + if err:
> + raise svntest.Failure('Error while running')
Perhaps you can use one of the UnexpectedStderr classes? This has the
advantage that the unexpected stderr output would be printed to whomever is
running the test.
(you can test this by adding an SVN_ERR_MALFUNCTION() in svnrdump.c:main())
> # Compare the output from stdout
Received on 2010-07-24 13:08:46 CEST