On 14 October 2016 at 00:29, Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de> wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 11:38 AM, Stefan wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 11:08 AM, Stefan wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Looks like update#38 is actually fixed. Leaving basic#41 broken:
>> FAIL: basic_tests.py 41: automatic conflict resolution
>>
>> Attached is the full test output.
>
> I realized the problems with the previous patches and think the best
> solution is to go with the initially discussed idea with stsp. Attached
> is the proposed patch. Please let me know if I'd change anything there
> or whether it's ok to apply as is.
>
> Index: subversion/include/svn_client.h
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/include/svn_client.h (revision 1764640)
> +++ subversion/include/svn_client.h (working copy)
> @@ -4653,6 +4653,7 @@
> svn_client_conflict_text_get_resolution_options(apr_array_header_t **options,
> svn_client_conflict_t *conflict,
> svn_client_ctx_t *ctx,
> + svn_boolean_t ui_resolutions,
> apr_pool_t *result_pool,
> apr_pool_t *scratch_pool);
>
What is UI_RESOLUTIONS option for? It should be documented in docstring anyway.
To my mind, this doesn't look like a good idea to have such flag in
the public svn_client_conflict_text_get_resolution_options() API. It
it useful and easy to understand for the third-party API users?
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2016-10-14 12:20:13 CEST