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

Re: [PATCH] Implement svnadmin verify --keep-going

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:55:19 +0000 (GMT)

Hi Prabhu. I have now looked in detail at your patch and tried using it.  I think I have found an inconsistency and a serious problem. The output for a failed revision depends on whether --keep-going was passed.  With --keep-going you print a "* Error verifying revision 2." line; without it you don't. Consistency of the output is important, but even more important is simplicity of the code.  I would expect the code to look something like (pseudo-code):   for R in range:     err = verify_rev(R)     if (err)       show the error and a 'Failed' notification       had_error = TRUE       if not keep_going:         break   if had_error:     return a 'Failed to verify the repo' error but you seem to have several different code paths.  Why do you have two different places that generate the "Repository '%s' failed to verify" message; can you do it in just one place? Another justification for always printing the "* Error verifying revision 2." line is that with the old output: [[[ $ svnadmin verify repo ... * Verified revision 15921. * Verified revision 15922. * Verified revision 15923. svnadmin: E160004: Invalid change kind in rev file ]]] it can be a little confusing at first glance to realize that the error relates to a revision number that was not mentioned -- revision 15924 in this example.  I have often in the past wished that we would print a notification line like "* Error verifying revision 15924." here. Also, in email [1] I suggested that the final summary error should be printed even when keep-going is false.  Did you consider that suggestion?  What do you think? A more serious problem: it doesn't always report the error at the end. [[[ $ bin/svnadmin verify --keep-going repo2 * Verified revision 0. * Verified revision 1. * Error verifying revision 2. subversion/libsvn_repos/replay.c:859: (apr_err=160004) subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c:6335: (apr_err=160004) subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c:6311: (apr_err=160004) subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c:6242: (apr_err=160004) subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c:6065: (apr_err=160004) svnadmin: E160004: Invalid change kind in rev file * Verified revision 3. ]]] The exit code is 0 here.  Clearly a bug.  The repository I used for this test is attached as 'jaf-corrupt-repo-2.tgz'. I am now sure that you need more tests.  You added a test, but can you tell us what it tests in functional terms?  It looks like it tests verifying a repo where there is an error in r6, and the youngest rev is r6.  That doesn't cover the main purpose of the 'keep going' feature, which is to keep going, does it? Can you think of other things that should be tested?  Please write a short list of tests that we should ideally have -- even if we might not write them all.  It might start with something like:   Scenario 1:     Repo: youngest=r3, an error in r3.     Command: svnadmin verify --keep-going repo   Expected results:     stdout: Nothing     stderr: Success messages for r0, r1, r2.             A 'revision failed' message for r3.             At least one error message relating to r3.     exit code: non-zero.   Scenario 2:     Repo: youngest=r5, error in r3 only (not affecting r4 or r5)     Command: svnadmin verify --keep-going repo   Expected results:     ... In svn_repos.h: svn_repos_verify_fs3():  /**   * Verify the contents of the file system in @a repos.   *   * If @a feedback_stream is not @c NULL, write feedback to it (lines of   * the form "* Verified revision %ld\n"). This mentions what feedback the function gives.  You are adding new feedback, so please update the doc string.  It must be out of date already because the function doesn't have a 'feedback_stream' parameter, so please fix that at the same time.   * If @a start_rev is #SVN_INVALID_REVNUM, then start verifying at   * revision 0.  If @a end_rev is #SVN_INVALID_REVNUM, then verify   * through the @c HEAD revision.   *   * For every verified revision call @a notify_func with @a rev set to   * the verified revision and @a warning_text @c NULL. For warnings call @a   * notify_func with @a warning_text set. Is that paragraph still correct or does it need updating? + * If @a keep_going is @c TRUE, the verify process notifies the error message + * and continues. If @a notify_func is @c NULL, the verification failure is + * not notified. Please document what this function returns (as I asked in [2]). + * @since New in 1.8. + */ +svn_error_t * +svn_repos_verify_fs3(svn_repos_t *repos, ...); In subversion/libsvn_repos/dump.c: svn_repos_verify_fs3(): You are doing error detection and handling in two places in this function out of more than two possible places where an error could be thrown.  As I wrote in [3], "Instead of checking for errors in several places within the main loop, put the verification code in a wrapper function and check for errors exactly once where you call that function.  That way you won't miss any.  In your last patch, there is at least one call that could return a verification error that isn't checked -- the call to svn_fs_revision_root()." In svnadmin.c: +    case svn_repos_notify_failure: +      if (notify->revision != SVN_INVALID_REVNUM) +        svn_error_clear(svn_stream_printf(feedback_stream, scratch_pool, +                            ("* Error verifying revision %ld.\n"), +                            notify->revision)); The message needs _() not just () around it for localization. Please write responses to the points I mentioned in this email.  You don't have to agree with all of them, but I want to know whether you agree or disagree or don't understand or aren't able to do what I suggest, or if I misunderstood your work and made a silly suggestion, or whatever. Thank you. - Julian [1] <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-11/0118.shtml> [2] <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-10/0498.shtml> [3] <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-11/0034.shtml>

Received on 2012-12-20 18:55:56 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.