On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 15:35, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 15:04, <hwright_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: hwright
>>> Date: Tue May 3 19:04:24 2011
>>> New Revision: 1099193
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1099193&view=rev
>>> For info, don't fake a completely bogus revision for added nodes, just
>>> report an invalid revision.
>>> In updating the tests, I noticed we report "Resource is not under version
>>> control" in the XML for nodes with invalid revnums. While this isn't
>>> strictly true for added nodes, I'll leave that fix for future change.
>> Eh? Shouldn't those tests be marked with XFail, rather than BAD OUTPUT?
> I'm not sure what you mean. The tests currently pass.
> My point was that our xml generation assumes an invalid revnum means
> that thing isn't versioned. While added nodes now correctly report an
> invalid revnum, they are versioned (or at least we've historically
> treated them as such, even though they haven't yet been committed to
> the repository).
> So spitting out "this thing is not versioned" isn't technically
> correct, since the node is still under Subversion's control, but it's
> the best we do right now. I claim the problem is orthogonal to the
> above change, and should be fixed in the command line client.
You updated the xml test to match the bad output. I think the test
should be marked XFail (and the output change reverted) until we can
get the cmdline client fixed to provide the proper output for added
Received on 2011-05-03 22:24:06 CEST