RE: Bug in svnrdump (trunk@1085375) -- malformed dump file with multiple properties

On 25 March 2011 at 19:19, Hyrum K Wright wrote
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> On 03/25/2011 11:31 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> Neil,
>>> Thanks for the report.  In attempting to reproduce, I wasn't even able
>>> to get as far as comparing the dumpfiles, as svnrdump asserted
>>> somewhere in the process.  I opened issue 3844[1] to track this bug,
>>> and committed an XFailing test in r1085428.  I also marked the issue
>>> as important for a 1.7.0 release.
>>>
>>> -Hyrum
>>>
>>> [1] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3844
>>
>> See r1085523.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> Neil, when you get a chance, could you test a r1085523 and see if it
> fixes your problem?
>
> Cheers,
> -Hyrum

Hi guys,

Sorry, but no cigar :( This probably fixes the assertion found by Hyrum, but doesn't address the original issue. The current test case added to the test suite addresses loading multiple propedits. That's good, but it's not sufficient. The heart of the issue is that a transaction with multiple propedits to a single path is *dumped* incorrectly. So for an original dump representation like this:

---
Node-path: 
Node-kind: dir
Node-action: change
Prop-content-length: 42
Content-length: 42
K 3
foo
V 3
bar
K 3
bar
V 3
baz
PROPS-END
---
The svnrdump output for the same transaction comes out like this:
---
Node-path: 
Node-kind: dir
Node-action: change
Prop-delta: true
Prop-content-length: 26
Content-length: 26
K 3
foo
V 3
bar
PROPS-END
Prop-delta: true
Prop-content-length: 26
Content-length: 26
K 3
bar
V 3
baz
PROPS-END
---
Note the second "orphaned" prop-delta.
It would be great if svnrdump produced exactly the same output as svnadmin (it'd make the test assertions nice and easy), but from a bit of experimentation (I haven't read the svnadmin code here) I don't believe that it's necessary for the two prop-deltas actually to be merged for the dumpfile to be valid. So if it's easier to repeat the preceding node-path information for each prop-delta then I guess that would be OK, as long as the net result is the same.
Thanks,
Neil