On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Vincent Lefevre <vincent-svn_at_vinc17.net> wrote:
> On 2016-03-03 10:31:52 +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> No, of course not :-). I just gave an example where the output was
>> broken (host not found), as opposed to another error condition (server
>> reponds "URL 'X' non-existent in revision Y") where the xml response
>> is still valid. Ignoring implementation (which I always do when I'm
>> arguing about behavior), this seems quite weird to me.
>
> No, this is different. In the former case, this is a server or
> communication problem: it is not possible to output the info
> because it is not possible to know what it is. In the latter case,
> the communication is successful, so that it is possible to output
> the info.
Agreed, it's different. But it's still weird / inconsistent IMO.
As I said, I don't know anything about the implementation of --xml,
but it seems to me that svn could easily complete the output by
closing the root element with "</info>". Apparently *something* goes
wrong executing the info request ... let's just cleanup nicely.
Another example, no server communication needed:
[[[
C:\>svn info --xml .
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<info>
svn: E155007: 'C:\' is not a working copy
]]]
But, go inside a working copy, and use a non-existing path:
[[[
C:\WorkingCopy>svn info --xml blah
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<info>
svn: warning: W155010: The node 'C:\WorkingCopy\blah' was not found.
</info>
svn: E200009: Could not display info for all targets because some
targets don't exist
]]]
Why </info> in one case and not in the other? As a user, I see no
reason for that.
--
Johan
Received on 2016-03-03 15:42:46 CET