Re: svn commit: r1583599 - in /subversion/branches/remote-only-status/subversion: include/svn_client.h libsvn_wc/status.c tests/libsvn_client/client-test.c

On 01.04.2014 12:54, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: brane_at_apache.org [mailto:brane_at_apache.org]
>> Sent: dinsdag 1 april 2014 12:41
>> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r1583599 - in /subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion: include/svn_client.h libsvn_wc/status.c
>> tests/libsvn_client/client-test.c
>>
>> Author: brane
>> Date: Tue Apr 1 10:41:29 2014
>> New Revision: 1583599
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1583599
>> Log:
>> On the remote-only-status branch: Do not report local replacements.
>>
>> * subversion/include/svn_client.h (svn_client_status6): Update docstring.
>> * subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c (assemble_status): Ignore local adds.
>> Report local replacements as deletions of the working node.
>> (get_dir_status): Remove redundant (and incorrect) filter for additions.
>> * subversion/tests/libsvn_client/client-test.c (test_remote_only_status):
>> Extend test case with an example of a local replacement.
>>
>> Modified:
>> subversion/branches/remote-only-status/subversion/include/svn_client.h
>> subversion/branches/remote-only-status/subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c
>> subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/tests/libsvn_client/client-test.c
>>
>> Modified: subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/include/svn_client.h
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/include/svn_client.h?rev=1583599&r1=1583598&r2=15835
>> 99&view=diff
>> ==========================================================
>> ====================
>> --- subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/include/svn_client.h (original)
>> +++ subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/include/svn_client.h Tue Apr 1 10:41:29 2014
>> @@ -2512,6 +2512,13 @@ typedef svn_error_t *(*svn_client_status
>> * - If @a check_working_copy is not set, do not scan the working
>> * copy for locally modified and missing files. This parameter
>> * will be ignored unless @a check_out_of_date is set.
>> + * When set, the status report will be different in the following
>> + * details:
>> + *
>> + * -- Local modifications, missing nodes and locally added nodes
>> + * will not be reported.
>> + * -- Locally replaced nodes will be reported as deletions of
>> + * the original node instead of as replacements.
>> *
>> * If @a no_ignore is @c FALSE, don't report any file or directory (or
>> * recurse into any directory) that is found by recursion (as opposed to
>>
>> Modified: subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c?rev=1583599&r1=1583598&r2=158359
>> 9&view=diff
>> ==========================================================
>> ====================
>> --- subversion/branches/remote-only-status/subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c
>> (original)
>> +++ subversion/branches/remote-only-
>> status/subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c Tue Apr 1 10:41:29 2014
>> @@ -573,7 +573,42 @@ assemble_status(svn_wc_status3_t **statu
>> if (below_working != svn_wc__db_status_not_present
>> && below_working != svn_wc__db_status_deleted)
>> {
>> - node_status = svn_wc_status_replaced;
>> + if (check_working_copy)
>> + node_status = svn_wc_status_replaced;
>> + else
>> + {
>> + /* This is a remote-only walk; report the
>> + base node info instead of the replacement. */
>> + const char *target;
>> + const svn_checksum_t *checksum;
>> + struct svn_wc__db_info_t *base_info =
>> + apr_palloc(scratch_pool, sizeof(*base_info));
>> + memcpy(base_info, info, sizeof(*base_info));
>> + SVN_ERR(svn_wc__db_read_pristine_info(
>> + &base_info->status,
>> + &base_info->kind,
>> + &base_info->changed_rev,
>> + &base_info->changed_date,
>> + &base_info->changed_author,
>> + &base_info->depth,
>> + &checksum, &target,
>> + &base_info->had_props, NULL,
>> + db, local_abspath,
>> + scratch_pool, scratch_pool));
>> + SVN_ERR(svn_wc__db_base_get_info(
>> + NULL, NULL, &base_info->revnum,
>> + NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>> + NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>> + NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>> + db, local_abspath,
>> + scratch_pool, scratch_pool));
> If you really want the repository information you should read all the values using svn_wc__db_base_get_info as the changed* values read by svn_wc__db_read_pristine_info are those of the highest layer...
> Only in case of a BASE-delete (not in case of a working delete, or a replacement!) do they represent the information you want.
>
>> + base_info->has_checksum = (checksum != NULL);
>> +#ifdef HAVE_SYMLINK
>> + base_info->special = (target != NULL);
> Target is not used (yet)... you must read the properties to determine if a node is a symlink or not. I think you can get the property values from svn_wc__db_base_get_info() now.
>
>> +#endif
> Bert
>
>> + node_status = svn_wc_status_deleted;
>> + info = base_info;
>> + }
>> }
>> else
>> node_status = svn_wc_status_added;
>> @@ -610,6 +645,16 @@ assemble_status(svn_wc_status3_t **statu
>> && prop_status != svn_wc_status_none)
>> node_status = prop_status;
>>
>> +
>> + /* Ignore local additions in remote-only mode */
>> + if (!check_working_copy
>> + && node_status == svn_wc_status_added
>> + && !moved_from_abspath)
>> + {
>> + *status = NULL;
>> + return SVN_NO_ERROR;
>> + }
> I don't think this really checks what you want to check here... I would guess you want to check the have_base value (too?), as replaced nodes will also have an added status.
> (And even with that you might still miss a few edge cases in case parent directories are replaced with files, or the other way around)
>
> Bert

Thanks for the review, again!

I'm actually thinking that this is really a hack, and I should just
modify svn_wc__db_read_single_info and svn_wc__db_read_children_info to
be aware of the remote-only flag. That's where the BASE->WORKING->ACTUAL
overlay happens, and what I'm doing here is basically just trying to
reproduce part of the result, which seems like a waste of code. IIUC, if
I get the modifications just right, the additions and replacements won't
show up in the results anyway, and I'll be able to revert this latest
commit, and not have a higher-level filter for added nodes.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane_at_wandisco.com