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

Re: Merge bug causes changesets to be applied although this should not be the case

From: Fredrik Orderud <forderud_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:26:54 +0200

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Fredrik Orderud <forderud_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> Fredrik Orderud wrote on Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 22:40:02 +0200:
>> > I've now written an XFAIL test for merging the same change change
>> twice.
>> > Patch attached. The test fails as expected due to the lack of conflict.
>> > This is the first test I've ever written for subversion, so there are
>> > probably some improvement opportunities. I suspect that one weak spot is
>> > that a "greek-tree" structure is generated without being used in the
>> test.
>> > Also, comparison of console output for merge results feels a little
>> fragile.
>> Yes, agreed on both points. You could use A/mu instead of creating a new
>> file, and use one of the svntest/actions.py helpers that parse the
>> output of merge/status instead of depending on the exact byte-by-byte
>> expected output. More below.
>> > Please let me know if there are any comments to the patch, and I'll do
>> my
>> > best to improve it. Otherwise, it would be great it the test could be
>> > integrated, so that issue #4405 can receive some test coverage.
>> Please use text/plain MIME type. This makes review easier. Usually
>> *.txt extesion achieves this.
>> I think the patch is correct *if* we agree that "Merge the same change
>> twice" should raise a conflict. Prior discussion in this thread
>> indicates that in present svn that scenario is explicitly decided not to
>> be a conflict. Therefore, I am not going to commit this patch.
>> I think the best thing to do is to attach it to the issue tracker on the
>> issue tracking Julian's suggestion of a "strict conflicts" mode. That
>> way, we can apply the patch once we start implementing the "strict"
>> mode. (We tend not to change our svntest/*.py interfaces that much, so
>> I wouldn't be concerned about bitrot.)
>> So, in summary: thanks for the patch, I think it's correct, but I'm not
>> going to apply it for the reasons above.
>> Does that make sense?
> Thank you for the response Daniel. I agree with your reasoning and will be
> satisfied with a "strict conflicts" mode in subversion. That's fine for
> me. :-)
> I will attempt to improve the patch based on Johan's and your feedback, and
> attach it to the issue-tracker sometime the next few days.

I've managed to rewrite the test script to use A/mu in the auto-generated
greek tree, but I did not understand how to use svntest/actions.py to parse
the output. Still, I took the liberty of attaching a 2nd revision of the
failing XFAIL test to

Hope that this is ok for you.

Received on 2013-08-11 00:27:24 CEST

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