[PATCH] Resolve issue #4647 on trunk (v2)

On 10/10/2016 11:39 PM, Stefan wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 6:12 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On 10 October 2016 at 17:53, Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de> wrote:
>>> On 8/28/2016 11:32 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
>>>>> Sent: zondag 28 augustus 2016 20:23
>>>>> To: Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de>
>>>>> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix a conflict resolution issue related to binary files (patch
>>>>> v4)
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 13:31:39 +0200:
>>>>>> The regression test was tested against 1.9.4, 1.9.x and trunk r1743999.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also tried to run the test against 1.8.16 but there it fails (didn't
>>>>>> investigate in detail).
>>>>>> Trunk r1758069 caused some build issues on my machine. Therefore I
>>>>>> couldn't validate/check the patch against the latest trunk (maybe it's
>>>>>> just some local issue with my build machine rather than some actual
>>>>>> problem on trunk - didn't look into that yet).
>>>>> For future reference, you might have tried building trunk_at_HEAD after
>>>>> locally reverting r1758069; i.e.:
>>>>>
>>>>> svn up
>>>>> svn merge -c -r1758069
>>>>> <apply patch>
>>>>> make check
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 18:33:55 +0200:
>>>>>> Got approved by Bert.
>>>>>>
>>>>> (Thanks for stating so on the thread.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Separated the repro test from the actual fix in order to have the
>>>>>> possibility to selectively only backport the regression test to the 1.8
>>>>>> branch.
>>>>> Good call, but the fix and the "remove XFail markers" (r1758129 and
>>>>> r1758130) should have been done in a single revision: they _are_
>>>>> a single logical change. That would also avoid breaking 'make check'
>>>>> (at r1758129 'make check' exits non-zero because of the XPASS).
>>>> I do this the same way sometimes, when I want to use the separate revision for backporting... But usually I commit things close enough that nobody notices the bot results ;-)
>>>> (While the initial XFail addition is still running, you can commit the two follow ups, and the buildbots collapses all the changes to a single build)
>>>>
>>>> I just committed the followup patch posted in another thread to unbreak the bots for the night...
>>>>
>>>> Bert
>>> Attached is a patch which should resolve the test case you added, Bert.
>>> Anybody feels like approving it? Or is there something I should
>>> improve/change?
>>>
>>> [[[
>>>
>>> Add support for the svn_client_conflict_option_working_text resolution for
>>> binary file conflicts.
>>>
>>> * subversion/libsvn_client/conflicts.c
>>> (): Add svn_client_conflict_option_working_text to binary_conflict_options
>>>
>>> * subversion/tests/cmdline/resolve_tests.py
>>> (automatic_binary_conflict_resolution): Remove XFail marker
>>>
>>> ]]]
>>>
>> It seems this patch breaks interactive conflict resolve:
>> With trunk I get the following to 'svn resolve' on binary file:
>> [[[
>> Merge conflict discovered in binary file 'A_COPY\theta'.
>> Select: (p) postpone,
>> (r) accept binary file as it appears in the working copy,
>> (tf) accept incoming version of binary file: h
>>
>> (p) - skip this conflict and leave it unresolved [postpone]
>> (tf) - accept incoming version of binary file [theirs-full]
>> (r) - accept binary file as it appears in the working copy [working]
>> (q) - postpone all remaining conflicts
>> ]]]
>>
>> But with patch I get the following:
>> [[[
>> Merge conflict discovered in binary file 'A_COPY\theta'.
>> Select: (p) postpone,
>> (r) accept binary file as it appears in the working copy,
>> (tf) accept incoming version of binary file: h
>>
>> (p) - skip this conflict and leave it unresolved [postpone]
>> (tf) - accept incoming version of binary file [theirs-full]
>> (mf) - accept binary file as it appears in the working copy [mine-full]
>> (r) - accept binary file as it appears in the working copy [working]
>> (q) - postpone all remaining conflicts
>> ]]]
>>
>> I think it's confusing and we should not offer the same option twice.
>>
> Completely agreed. The display of the option in the UI shouldn't be like
> that. Certainly an oversight on my side. Will revise the patch and come
> up with a different/better approach tomorrow.
>
> Regards,
> Stefan

Trying to put together a revised patch without the issue. The attached
patch fixes the 4647 test but breaks two other tests:

basic#41
update#38

Still looking into what I'm doing wrong, but any pointers would be much
appreciated.

Regards,
Stefan