sebb wrote on Sun, 12 Jul 2020 16:55 +0100:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 15:26, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >
> > sebb wrote on Tue, 07 Jul 2020 20:43 +0100:
> > > When I first started using svnmucc, it used to be the case that
> > > svnmucc 'put' --revision 0 would fail if the target file already
> > > existed. This no longer happens.
> > >
> >
> > Is the file-to-be's parent directory the root directory?
>
> No, it's not.
>
> > If that isn't the case, then the new behaviour is correct.
>
> Why is that?
>
Because the target of the 'put' operation didn't exist at r0, and the
base revision is specified to be a revision in which the target of the
operation existed. (See svn_delta_editor_t::open_root()'s docstring.)
Moreover, even that syntax it did work, it should arguably fail if the
file had been created and subsequently deleted, which isn't the same
semantics as the algorithm you posted.
> > You might wish to post the error message.
>
> Just tried with a local SVN repo:
>
> $ svnmucc -mBug --revision 0 -- put /dev/null
> file:///var/tools/svnrep/asf/x/b.tmp
> svnmucc: E160016: Can't commit to 'file:///var/tools/svnrep/asf/x'
> because it is not a directory
>
> That message is wrong, because /x/ *is* a directory.
Runnable reproduction recipe, please.
I wonder if the error is reported because /x isn't a directory _at r0_,
per the above explanation. What happens if you try to put a file into
the root directory? If you keep the target as-is but change the value
of the --revision argument to the revision in which ^/x was created? To
the revision just before that?
> The same error occurs regardless of whether b.tmp is present.
>
> > > The previous behaviour was very useful, so are there any plans to reinstate it?
> > >
> >
> > Patches welcome. (You'll have to propose a new syntax, of course.)
>
> --revision -1
-1 actually already has a meaning (SVN_INVALID_REVNUM). More
importantly, this approach makes it impossible to specify a base
revision if any single operation is a "create exclusively" operation.
Shouldn't the new syntax be per-operation, so people could combine
"create exclusively" operations, "create or update" operations, and
other kinds of operations in the same command line, _and_ have the
option of specifying a base revision as well?
> > > I don't think there is a straightforward way to guarantee the same
> > > behaviour now.
> > >
> >
> > Try:
> >
> > svn checkout --depth=empty $URL wc
> > cd wc
> > svn up --set-depth=infinite iota
> > touch iota
> > svn add iota
> > svn commit -mm
> > svn up --set-depth=empty iota
> > svn cleanup # prune .svn/pristine
>
> Not exactly straightforward, but it does fail if the file has been
> created meanwhile
> However the error response still has to be analysed
>
> Also the script can fail in at least two places, depending on when the
> file is created.
>
And why is that a problem?
In the future, please provide all the needed information (reproduction
recipes, error messages, the answer to "Why is it a problem?") up front.
I don't intend to guess the missing parts and I don't have the
brainwidth to prompt you every time.
> > > The closest I could get is:
> > >
> > > 1) get current parent directory revision
> > > 2) check if target file does not exist. This is not as easy as it
> > > sounds, as the target directory may have too many files to list
> > > efficiently, and any other file-based command may fail for a reason
> > > other than a missing file.
> >
> > How is «svn info $URL/to/file@$REV» not sufficient? You can use
> > $URL/to{,/file}@$REV if you want, too.
>
> Same issue: svn info only returns success if the file exists.
> An error may mean the file did not exist or something else, so the
> error text has to be analysed.
Use the machine-parseable E000042 error codes. That's exactly what
they're for. (which-error.py and svn_error_symbolic_name() can be used
to convert numbers to symbolic names.)
> > > 3) Put the file using the revision obtained in step 1.
> > > AFAICT this is guaranteed not to replace an existing file.
> > >
> > > However it may fail to create the file if the target directory has
> > > been updated in the meantime.
> > >
> > > It's only safe to repeat the attempted create if the command failed
> > > due to an out of date revision.
> > > So the failure reason will have to be analysed.
> >
> > What part of the above is a problem, and why?
>
> It requires analysing the error response, which is likely to be fragile.
See above.
Received on 2020-07-12 19:14:05 CEST