[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] svn: Attempted to get textual contents of a *non*-file node

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:31:58 +0200

Thanks for the patch Alexey. Forwarding it to dev@.

Alexey Neyman wrote on Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 16:27:11 -0800:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Monday, March 05, 2012 11:33:33 pm Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Alexey Neyman wrote on Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 16:14:24 -0800:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I ran into the following error message with Subversion:
> > >
> > > svn: Attempted to get textual contents of a *non*-file node
> > >
> > > The issue, as pointed out by email thread [1], is that the directory
> > > being merged contains a file with the same name as the directory. I.e.,
> > > there is /trunk/foo directory containing /trunk/foo/foo file.
> > >
> > > However, even if I tried the suggestion from Ben Collins-Sussman, it
> > > didn't help: 'svn merge' still complained with the same error message.
> > > Reproduction script attached. Is there a way such projects can use 'svn
> > > merge' command?
> > >
> > > I tried with Subversion trunk and, although the error message is
> > > different ("svn: E160017: '/trunk/foo' is not a file"), the result is
> > > still the same. While it is a better message than the one in 1.6, it
> > > still does not explain why Subversion expects /trunk/foo to be a file
> > > for the following commands:
> > >
> > > svn merge -c 4 ^/trunk/foo
> > > svn merge -c 4 ^/trunk/foo .
> > > svn merge ^/trunk/foo_at_3 ^/trunk/foo_at_4 .
> > > svn merge -r 3:4 ^/trunk/foo .
> >
> > Yeah, I just tried with trunk, couldn't get the merge to work, with
> > those commands (some of which are made equivalent by the argument
> > parser) or with <svn merge ^/trunk/foo_at_3 ^/trunk/foo_at_4 foo>.
> >
> > Looks like a bug to me, assuming it works when the dir and the file are
> > not both named the same thing.
>
> I confirm it works when dir and file do not have the same name. E.g., if you
> rename new file 'B' in the attached testcase to, say, 'X' - it passes. There
> is one more condition for this bug to manifest: the offending directory must
> be the current directory: even though
>
> $ svn merge -c 4 ^/trunk/foo .
>
> fails, the following
>
> $ wc=`pwd`
> $ cd ..
> $ svn merge -c 4 ^/trunk/foo $wc
>
> works. I guess, it's sort of a workaround.
>
> > > As another side note, Subversion leaves behind a zero-sized temporary
> > > file created for the merge.
> >
> > And this one too. (the file is in the wc root)
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alexey.
> > >
> > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/qqh3r6d4tcdyjnz2#query:
> > > +page:1+mid:vcjektlfn37mxyld+state:results
> >
> > Could you file an issue? Perhaps send a patch adding a regression test
> > for this (in Python)? (See subversion/tests/cmdline/README)
>
> Issue 4139 created. Attached is a patch that adds an XFail to the test suite
> for this issue.
>
> Regards,
> Alexey.

> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py (revision 1297725)
> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py (working copy)
> @@ -17467,6 +17467,64 @@
> 'merge', sbox.repo_url + '/A',
> A_COPY_path)
>
> +@XFail()
> +@Issue(4139)
> +def merge_dir_file_same_name(sbox):
> + "merged directory has file with same name"
> + sbox.build()
> + wc_dir = sbox.wc_dir
> +
> + # Paths of interest in first WC
> + A_B_B_path = os.path.join(wc_dir, 'A', 'B', 'B')
> +
> + # Create file 'B' in path '/A/B' - revision 2
> + svntest.main.file_write(A_B_B_path, "Project B now has file B")
> + svntest.main.run_svn(None, 'add', A_B_B_path)
> + expected_output = svntest.wc.State(wc_dir, {
> + 'A/B/B' : Item(verb='Adding'),
> + })
> + expected_status = svntest.actions.get_virginal_state(wc_dir, 1)
> + expected_status.add({
> + 'A/B/B' : Item(status=' ', wc_rev=2),
> + })
> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_commit(wc_dir, expected_output,
> + expected_status, None,
> + wc_dir)
> +
> + # Copy '/A' to '/A_COPY' - revision 3
> + sbox.simple_repo_copy('A', 'A_COPY')
> +
> + # Now modify '/A/B/B' - revision 4
> + svntest.main.file_write(A_B_B_path, "File B is now modified")
> + expected_output = svntest.wc.State(wc_dir, {
> + 'A/B/B' : Item(verb='Sending'),
> + })
> + expected_status = svntest.actions.get_virginal_state(wc_dir, 1)
> + expected_status.add({
> + 'A/B/B' : Item(status=' ', wc_rev=4),
> + })
> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_commit(wc_dir, expected_output,
> + expected_status, None,
> + wc_dir)
> +
> + # Now check out A_COPY/B in a separate WC
> + wc_copy = sbox.add_wc_path('copy')
> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, None, [], 'checkout',
> + sbox.repo_url + '/A_COPY/B', wc_copy)
> +
> + # And try to merge the change from revision 4 of /A/B/B to
> + # /A_COPY/B/B from the WC dir.
> + saved_cwd = os.getcwd()
> + os.chdir(wc_copy)
> + expected_output = expected_merge_output([[4]],
> + ['U B\n',
> + ' U \.',])
> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(None, expected_output, [],
> + 'merge', '-c', '4',
> + sbox.repo_url + '/A/B')
> + os.chdir(saved_cwd)
> +
> +
> ########################################################################
> # Run the tests
>
> @@ -17599,6 +17657,7 @@
> unnecessary_noninheritable_mergeinfo_shallow_merge,
> svnmucc_abuse_1,
> merge_source_with_replacement,
> + merge_dir_file_same_name,
> ]
>
> if __name__ == '__main__':
Received on 2012-03-07 06:32:51 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.